# First Image from the James Webb telescope...



## Jody (12 Jul 2022)

Anyone else excited by the James Webb Space Telescope announcement this afternoon?

Teaser image released this morning which looks incredible.

I can't wait to see what is going to be revealed over the coming years by this amazing piece of engineering

14.30GMT this afternoon for anyone wanting to watch the live feed

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/...livers-deepest-infrared-image-of-universe-yet

"The image shows the galaxy cluster SMACS 0723 as it appeared 4.6 billion years ago. The combined mass of this galaxy cluster acts as a gravitational lens, magnifying much more distant galaxies behind it. Webb’s NIRCam has brought those distant galaxies into sharp focus – they have tiny, faint structures that have never been seen before, including star clusters and diffuse features. Researchers will soon begin to learn more about the galaxies’ masses, ages, histories, and compositions, as Webb seeks the earliest galaxies in the universe."


----------



## Darius_Jedburgh (12 Jul 2022)

Jody said:


> Anyone else excited by the James Webb Space Telescope announcement this afternoon?
> 
> Teaser image released this morning which looks incredible.
> 
> I can't wait to see what is going to be revealed over the coming years by this amazing piece of engineering


+1

So much out there that we will never ever know about.
I heard it said that there were 100 million galaxies with 100 million stars in each. Each star is the equivalent of our sun, so balance of probabilities says there is anoher planet out there able to support life of some form.
But given the time this light has taken to reach us we will never ever be able to communicate with them.


----------



## markemark (12 Jul 2022)

Darius_Jedburgh said:


> +1
> 
> So much out there that we will never ever know about.
> I heard it said that there were 100 million galaxies with 100 million stars in each. Each star is the equivalent of our sun, so balance of probabilities says there is anoher planet out there able to support life of some form.
> But given the time this light has taken to reach us we will never ever be able to communicate with them.



Not only that, the vanishingly small window of time life would exist would mean the chances of two life forms coexisting at the same time is virtually 0.


----------



## Jody (12 Jul 2022)

Darius_Jedburgh said:


> +1
> 
> So much out there that we will never ever know about.
> I heard it said that there were 100 million galaxies with 100 million stars in each. Each star is the equivalent of our sun, so balance of probabilities says there is anoher planet out there able to support life of some form.
> But given the time this light has taken to reach us we will never ever be able to communicate with them.



Unbelievable isn't it.

It blows my mind to try and comprehend it and especially when someone quantifies what you are seeing. To have the ability to look billions of years back in time. One of the stars pictured is now 27 billion light years away


----------



## Beebo (12 Jul 2022)

Jody said:


> Unbelievable isn't it.
> 
> It blows my mind to try and comprehend it and especially when someone quantifies what you are seeing. To have the ability to look billions of years back in time. One of the stars pictured is now 27 billion light years away



that’s a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.


----------



## Darius_Jedburgh (12 Jul 2022)

Jody said:


> It blows my mind to try and comprehend it and especially when someone quantifies what you are seeing


The numbers are so far out of normal understanding that we can have no idea how far away 27 billiion light years really is. That's an awful lot of noughts!!!


----------



## Ming the Merciless (12 Jul 2022)

There is an article online that shows same area of Universe taken by Hubble. Really shows how things have moved along.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (12 Jul 2022)

I particularly like the confirmation of the gravitational lense as predicted by Einstein - and that's the beauty of science; predict and confirm or not. 

Beats the second coming prediction rollocks hands-down. 🙂


----------



## DCBassman (12 Jul 2022)

Amazing instrument.


----------



## Jody (12 Jul 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> There is an article online that shows same area of Universe taken by Hubble. Really shows how things have moved along.



Love my Hubble book. I thought we were at the pinnacle with what that could do.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Jul 2022)

and it doesn't disappoint!







more images will be added to this page as they are released
https://www.nasa.gov/webbfirstimage...ectNiL2-hBmA9JiCmHS9tQuaa7sL1U-VeWj7E5c_-0EYA


----------



## Dogtrousers (12 Jul 2022)

Jody said:


> Love my Hubble book. I thought we were at the pinnacle with what that could do.



I feel rather sorry for poor old Hubble with all the comparison pics of JWST vs Hubble doing the rounds.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (12 Jul 2022)

I wish they'd have kept it still


----------



## Jody (12 Jul 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> I feel rather sorry for poor old Hubble all the comparison pics of JWST vs Hubble doing the rounds.
> View attachment 652482



It was a toss up between the sad and wow emoji.

Shame as it stands that we can't recover Hubble back from space. I feel it deserves it.


----------



## Dogtrousers (12 Jul 2022)

Jody said:


> It was a toss up between the sad and wow emoji.
> 
> Shame as it stands that we can't recover Hubble back from space. I feel it deserves it.



It's not really a fair comparision, because they are two different beasts. Hubble works in visible light, and JWST in infra red. So they're comparing an image where JWST picks out many objects that Hubble can only see dimly because they are so red shifted. There are probably a whole load of things that JWST isn't designed to do that Hubble does better (or maybe not I dunno).


----------



## SpokeyDokey (12 Jul 2022)

Hubble is still being supported - with a 5 year budget plan recently submitted. 

The old beast still has a role to play!


----------



## Jody (12 Jul 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> It's not really a fair comparision, because they are two different beasts. Hubble works in visible light, and JWST in infra red. So they're comparing an image where JWST picks out many objects that Hubble can only see dimly because they are so red shifted. There are probably a whole load of things that JWST isn't designed to do that Hubble does better (or maybe not I dunno).



They're different beasts alright. But Hubble deserves its place for the advancement it brought. 

As you say JWST is packed with all sorts of different sensors. Tip of the iceberg.

Just skimmed the news and have seen a couple of shots. Can't wait to have a good read through later.


----------



## lazybloke (12 Jul 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> It's not really a fair comparision, because they are two different beasts. Hubble works in visible light, and JWST in infra red. So they're comparing an image where JWST picks out many objects that Hubble can only see dimly because they are so red shifted. There are probably a whole load of things that JWST isn't designed to do that Hubble does better (or maybe not I dunno).



There's a bit of overlap. JWST can also see about a third of visible wavelengths


----------



## winjim (12 Jul 2022)

The image is all warped and wobbly, needs some correction applied to it I think. I read somewhere that it's because the lens is too heavy or something? I don't see how they've spent all that time and money and come up with something that can't even take a straight up undistorted image. Somebody's cocked up somewhere.


----------



## Dogtrousers (12 Jul 2022)

winjim said:


> The image is all warped and wobbly, needs some correction applied to it I think. I read somewhere that it's because the lens is too heavy or something? I don't see how they've spent all that time and money and come up with something that can't even take a straight up undistorted image. Somebody's cocked up somewhere.



Nope it's working exactly as designed. I think you're probably getting confused with Hubble which had an aberration in the mirror that needed corrective optics. Mind you that was a long time ago (early '90s)


----------



## Profpointy (12 Jul 2022)

This shows a good comparison with Hubble.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (12 Jul 2022)

Profpointy said:


> This shows a good comparison with Hubble.
> 
> View attachment 652499



Why did they use a CD for Hubble?


----------



## winjim (12 Jul 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Nope it's working exactly as designed. I think you're probably getting confused with Hubble which had an aberration in the mirror that needed corrective optics. Mind you that was a long time ago (early '90s)



No, it's definitely the new image. Haven't you seen it? Parts of it are all over the place. Like I said, somebody said it's something to do with gravity affecting the lens, but it's out in space where there isn't any gravity. I'm sure they can do some digital correction to sort it out, save the entire mission from being a waste of money.


See, look at the distortion on that. Wibble wobble.


----------



## Dogtrousers (12 Jul 2022)

winjim said:


> No, it's definitely the new image. Haven't you seen it? Parts of it are all over the place. Like I said, somebody said it's something to do with gravity affecting the lens, but it's out in space where there isn't any gravity. I'm sure they can do some digital correction to sort it out, save the entire mission from being a waste of money.


No, I think what's confusing you is the term "gravitational lensing". The gravitational field of a very massive celestial object distorts light, effectively acting as a lens magnifying (and distorting) objects behind it. They chose this particular field of the sky for this very reason. Read a bit about it here https://esahubble.org/wordbank/gravitational-lensing/

Incidentally, the size of the field of view of this image is (so I've read) a patch of sky the size of a grain of sand held at arm's length.


----------



## Jody (12 Jul 2022)

winjim said:


> No, it's definitely the new image. Haven't you seen it? Parts of it are all over the place. Like I said, somebody said it's something to do with gravity affecting the lens, but it's out in space where there isn't any gravity. I'm sure they can do some digital correction to sort it out, save the entire mission from being a waste of money.
> 
> 
> See, look at the distortion on that. Wibble wobble.
> ...



Gravity of the galaxies acting as a lense and warping space time rather than affecting the lense in JWST.


----------



## winjim (12 Jul 2022)

That can't be right, it's at a Lagrange point, it's not affected by gravity.


----------



## Dogtrousers (12 Jul 2022)

I has a quick google around and found a better article. https://www.republicworld.com/scien...hat-is-gravitational-lensing-articleshow.html @winjim - this is worth a read.

In short, the distortion that you are seeing is not nature distorted by a faulty telescope. But nature distorted by nature itself. 



winjim said:


> That can't be right, it's at a Lagrange point, it's not affected by gravity.


Now I know you're just being silly.


----------



## winjim (12 Jul 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Now I know you're just being silly.



Indeed. But on a serious note, to see the effect of gravitational lensing like that, demonstrated so clearly, is a beautiful thing.


----------



## Jody (12 Jul 2022)

winjim said:


> Indeed.



I should have known when you said look at the wibble wobble


----------



## Dogtrousers (12 Jul 2022)

I'll bet there are a ton of tinfoil hatters out there pointing at the wibble-wobble and complaining furiously. Especially now Biden has been involved which will make them hate it all the more. And those pointy bits. What's with the pointy bits?

And something something God.


----------



## BoldonLad (12 Jul 2022)

winjim said:


> No, it's definitely the new image. Haven't you seen it? Parts of it are all over the place. Like I said, somebody said it's something to do with gravity affecting the lens,* but it's out in space where there isn't any gravity.* I'm sure they can do some digital correction to sort it out, save the entire mission from being a waste of money.
> 
> 
> See, look at the distortion on that. Wibble wobble.
> ...



I thought there was Gravity, or at least Gravitational effect, even in Space, if not, what is the force which keeps the Earth spinning around the sun, and, the moon, spinning around the Earth? Do I need to read my "The Universe for Dummies" book again, more carefully this time?


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Jul 2022)

nil points for an informative thread title


----------



## Jody (12 Jul 2022)

MontyVeda said:


> nil points for an informative thread title



Nil is a harsh score.

Reckon it's at least 3/10


----------



## BoldonLad (12 Jul 2022)

Jody said:


> Nil is a harsh score.
> 
> Reckon it's at least 3/10



Well, it had the effect of getting me to read the thread. I thought "what on earth is that about?, so, clicked on it", well done


----------



## Arrowfoot (12 Jul 2022)

Impressed by it as well as some of the information posted by some of the members.


----------



## winjim (12 Jul 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> I thought there was Gravity, or at least Gravitational effect, even in Space, if not, what is the force which keeps the Earth spinning around the sun, and, the moon, spinning around the Earth? Do I need to read my "The Universe for Dummies" book again, more carefully this time?



You are correct, that's why the most important officer on a spaceship is the boatswain.


----------



## BoldonLad (12 Jul 2022)

winjim said:


> You are correct, that's why the most important officer on a spaceship is the boatswain.



Don't know about that Uhura (Comms and translation) always kept my interest in Space Travel alive


----------



## oldwheels (12 Jul 2022)

winjim said:


> You are correct, that's why the most important officer on a spaceship is the boatswain.



The way I look at it the solar system is just a molecule and the planets are atoms spinning around it. We are probably just part of a chair leg or something in a larger system.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (12 Jul 2022)




----------



## Ming the Merciless (12 Jul 2022)




----------



## Jody (12 Jul 2022)

oldwheels said:


> The way I look at it the solar system is just a molecule and the planets are atoms spinning around it. We are probably just part of a chair leg or something in a larger system.



Ive thought this for a while.

My other half says everything is fractal and that just feels right.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Jul 2022)

Jody said:


> Nil is a harsh score.
> 
> Reckon it's at least 3/10



I'm just in a mood because everyone ignored my thread on the same subject  ...posted only because i hadn't spotted yours


----------



## Pat "5mph" (12 Jul 2022)

*Mod Note:*
Duplicate threads merged into the one with the better title


----------



## newfhouse (12 Jul 2022)

Jody said:


> One of the stars pictured is now 27 billion light years away


Can that be right if the universe is only (!) 13.8 billion years old?


----------



## Dogtrousers (12 Jul 2022)

winjim said:


> Indeed. But on a serious note, to see the effect of gravitational lensing like that, demonstrated so clearly, is a beautiful thing.



I hate you. You completely had me and I was being so nice and patient while gritting my teeth.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Jul 2022)

Pat 5mph said:


> *Mod Note:*
> Duplicate threads merged into the one with the better title



you've always been my favourite


----------



## Jody (12 Jul 2022)

newfhouse said:


> Can that be right if the universe is only (!) 13.8 billion years old?



Its going the opposite direction.

You are seeing light from the star just after the big bang which was 13.8 billion years ago but to travel to it would take 27 billion years (assuming you could stop expansion of the universe whilst travelling)


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Jul 2022)

Jody said:


> Its going the opposite direction.
> 
> You are seeing light from the star just after the big bang which was 13.8 billion years ago but to travel to it would take 27 billion years (assuming you could stop expansion of the universe whilst travelling)



What?! .... a bloke in town holding a 'the end is nigh' plaque told me it was 6,000* years old 

* which is still very very old... I'm only fifty three


----------



## Ming the Merciless (12 Jul 2022)

newfhouse said:


> Can that be right if the universe is only (!) 13.8 billion years old?




View: https://youtu.be/vIJTwYOZrGU


----------



## winjim (12 Jul 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> I hate you. You completely had me and I was being so nice and patient while gritting my teeth.



You were very accommodating.


----------



## Profpointy (12 Jul 2022)

Jody said:


> I should have known when you said look at the wibble wobble



Wibble wobble is a thing though isn't it ?


----------



## Dogtrousers (12 Jul 2022)

Profpointy said:


> Wibble wobble is a thing though isn't it ?



I remember my A level physics teacher calling Young's Modulus "the coefficient of dingly-dangly"


----------



## newfhouse (12 Jul 2022)

Jody said:


> Its going the opposite direction.
> 
> You are seeing light from the star just after the big bang which was 13.8 billion years ago but to travel to it would take 27 billion years (assuming you could stop expansion of the universe whilst travelling)



Ah, of course. Thanks for prompting me to read up about the Hubble Constant.


----------



## Jody (12 Jul 2022)

Profpointy said:


> Wibble wobble is a thing though isn't it ?



Depends on how many pints you've had.


----------



## hobo (12 Jul 2022)

Surely if they look back far enough they're see God.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (12 Jul 2022)

The company I'm working with at the moment has been developing this with NASA for 20 years. There's great excitement, to say the least.


----------



## Dirk (13 Jul 2022)

hobo said:


> Surely if they look back far enough they're see God.



Non sequiter.


----------



## Jody (13 Jul 2022)

I didn't get much free time last night so decided to take a good look around the 4K pictures floating around online.

Spent about half an hour on the galaxy picture and it's amazing. The definition of the smaller galaxies captured, coupled with the detail in the dark areas is mind blowing. 

There may be some artistic license choosing the hues and what gets touched up, but they are stunning.


----------



## twentysix by twentyfive (13 Jul 2022)

Jody said:


> There may be some artistic license choosing the hues



No colour in the infrared (to our eyes) so it is all "artistic license"


----------



## Ming the Merciless (13 Jul 2022)

twentysix by twentyfive said:


> No colour in the infrared (to our eyes) so it is all "artistic license"



Not really, red shift is well understand, we understand the wavelength signatures emitted by different star types, and the colours can be pretty well determined. Even red shifted the light received paints a signature.


----------



## Darius_Jedburgh (14 Jul 2022)

Programme about JWST on BBC2 tonight at 8PM.


----------



## Jody (14 Jul 2022)

Darius_Jedburgh said:


> Programme about JWST on BBC2 tonight at 8PM.



Thanks for the head up. 

Hopefully it's on iplayer afterwards as we ditched Sky a few weeks ago and haven't sorted anything for live TV yet.


----------



## lazybloke (14 Jul 2022)

Jody said:


> Thanks for the head up.
> 
> Hopefully it's on iplayer afterwards as we ditched Sky a few weeks ago and haven't sorted anything for live TV yet.



I'm a few minutes into it on iplayer.
Fantastic so far.


----------

