Live data from Hacker News

Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

johnedchristensen.github.io

61–70 of 254 posts

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#61
For the professional (or former professional) astronomers among us, I will make my somewhat amused observation that what people are most paying attention to is not really the distinguishing features of JWST.

People seem most impressed by the apparent increase in resolution of the images, which is not from a certain point of view the hardest thing to do . HST might have done that if its instruments had been of different pixel size or imaging array size / focal length. Ok, the much larger mirror is an achievement. But anyway, the resolution of the images is often not what really is the limiting factor for photometric observations. Yes it is sharper/higher resolution, but that wasn't the key selling point.

The new thing is observations in the IR, which is somewhat a technical footnote in many gushing announcements of these images (or some discussion here too). And the general public knows little about that detail's importance, especially since the images are stylized / colored anyway to look just like RGB images that we are so familiar with. But everyone can easily appreciate a sharper image.

Anyway, still a momentous achievement. And thank god we have a scientific field where stunning images was enough to get the public to support a $10B project.

**

Edit to add: I did not mean to detract from or diminish anyone's appreciation of the images and accomplishment at whatever level they are enjoyed. And of course many here are technically knowledgeable about the IR aspect. I just write to point out that for the most headline-grabbing images and newspaper writers, the sharpness of the images over the actual IR frontier is what grabs the attention.

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The spikes are caused by diffraction of light around the struts supporting the secondary mirror. Hubble has 4 supports for the secondary mirror. JWST has 3 support for the secondary mirror, which because...physics (I don't know I'm not an optics guy)...manifests as 6 diffraction lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_spike EDIT: It may be caused by both the diffraction spikes from the supports struts and th…

Apparently the Diffraction spikes come from both the primary mirror shapes and the struts holding the secondary mirror. The primary mirrors of the JWST are hexagonal which would explain hexagonal looking effects. The three struts are apparently designed so that two of the struts match the hexagonal mirror angles at all times and are "hidden" inside. (The third strut apparently sometimes causes two much smaller "horiz…

Link to that Hank Green video on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7ieVkK-Cz0

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it shows the top half of the Hubble version, but not the bottom.

That's the extent of the Hubble original https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/2008/34/2405-Im...

That makes sense then. I have two suggestions if the person who made this is reading: maybe fill out the hubble image with black so it can line up with the JWST image, might make the interface less janky? Or if someone knows of a larger imagine from another telescope(Spitzer?) That could be a more interesting comparison for that particular observation.

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#65
post #26

Question for anyone who happens to be an expert: Is there any way to quantify how much better Webb is independently of the amount of time used to take the exposures? Like, could Hubble achieve the same quality of images as Webb if it was given 100x (or whatever) more time exposure? I'm trying to understand how much the improvement is "speed of convergence" vs. "quality of asymptotic result". (Though... is that even a…

IANA{astrophysicist, space engineer} but I do follow this closely and have what I call a working armchair understanding of this stuff. Anyone from relevant fields is welcome to gently correct any imprecisions. I always want to learn more and will thank you for it >could Hubble achieve the same quality of images as Webb if it was given 100x (or whatever) more time exposure? No, for a different and simpler reason: Hubb…

> That is ~6.25 times the light collection area of Hubble(25.4m² vs 4m²)

This would have to be scaled by the wavelength being observed, for a resolution comparison. Hubble actually has better absolute resolution, when viewing shorter the wavelengths that JWT can't sense (0.05 arcseconds vs JWT 0.1 arcseconds).

Re: Compare Webb's Images to Hubble

#68
post #4

Here's a backyard telescope versus Webb: https://twitter.com/AJamesMcCarthy/status/154694183270093209... More comparisons on Twitter, some zoomed in: - https://twitter.com/Batsuto_/status/1546899241880240128 - https://twitter.com/Batsuto_/status/1546900387931766784 - https://twitter.com/JBWillcox/status/1546881033597075457 - https://twitter.com/jason4short/status/1546626672488632321 I'm not a physicist, so I've only…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN