5 ms·

No, this is a radio source and JWST is primarily an infrared observatory.

• ceejayoz 5y ago
  That we've detected a radio source doesn't mean there's not something there in infrared as well, though.
  • eternalban 5y ago
    No that's the entire point of calling it a 'magnetar'. These things convert the magnetic field into radio waves. That's the only thing that is being emitted and 'observable'. This specific specimen matches a theoretical variant that has an ultra long cycle.
    • ceejayoz 5y ago
      That doesn't mean there's nothing to see. Here's a magnetar imaged with infrared via the Spitzer telescope: https://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/image/ssc2008-08a-ghostly-ring-around-a-magnetar https://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/image/ssc2008-08a-ghostly-ri...
      • dekhn 5y ago
        from your link: "The magnetar itself is not visible in this image, as it has not been detected at infrared wavelengths (it has been seen in X-ray light)." so what they are imaging is indirect effects of the magnetar, not the magnetar itself.
        • ceejayoz 5y ago
          Re-read my post. > That we've detected a radio source doesn't mean there's not something there in infrared as well, though. The Spitzer image demonstrates there may be value to pointing something like JWST at it. Existence of a remnant tells us what probably made it, size of that remnant tells us how old it is, etc. (Lack of a remnant would be interesting, too.)
        • postalrat 5y ago
          And when you eyes look at your computer screen they only see the light coming off it, not the actual screen.
          • dekhn 5y ago
            yes. that's direct imaging. Your eyes are detecting photons emitted directly by the source at their emission frequency. Indirect imaging a monitor would be looking at nearby reflective objects that absorbed those photons and emitted different ones (fluorescence, phosphorescence, heated object...)