7 ms·
Show HN: A JWST/Hubble deepfield comparison on a zoomable/pannable map interface
- dirslashls 4y agoNice. It would be good to have a way to reset to get back to the initial state after zooming/panning.
- aardvarkr 4y agoThis is incredible. Thanks for sharing it!
- revskill 4y agoThese are annoying to me because lacks of real difference from a senior astronaut viewpoint. As a normal user, the only difference i could see is just "brighter", anything more to add to the details ? Else i could say, just the same.
- atoav 4y agoJWST shows a much bigger part of the wavelength spectrum. That means it can image things that would just not show up in Hubble. E.g. think about far away galaxies that have been redshifted so much (due to the expanding universe) that they fell below the lower wavelength threshold of Hubble.
- Synaesthesia 4y agoYes, also cooler objects show up, which are otherwise invisible and you can see through interstellar dust and clouds better.
- testcase_delta 4y agoZoom in on a small section of sky and toggle between James and Hubble. James reveals many additional galaxy in each tiny slice of image. Probably hundreds or more in that one image alone.
- falseprofit 4y agoCheck out some of the reddest galaxies in the Webb image. Even the big ones are entirely invisible on the Hubble image.
- Azrael3000 4y agoCheck out the video by Scott Manley, he explains quite a bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FWO1Pvbhq4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FWO1Pvbhq4
- arriu 4y agoI love that there is a star showing some drift
- Azrael3000 4y agoThere's no drifting there. What you are seeing is gravitational lensing. The light of (most likely a galaxy) is bent around another galaxy or star which distorts its appearance. Also this means it can potentially show up multiple times on the image (e.g. opposite side w.r.t. the lensing object)
- outputchannel 4y agoThanks for the comments! It does look like some stars may be exhibiting stellar drift, I've isolated an example here: https://academo.org/demos/james-webb-vs-hubble-telescope-comparison/stellar-drift.gif https://academo.org/demos/james-webb-vs-hubble-telescope-com... This is from the middle-right side of the deep field. If you look slightly below the two central galaxies, there is what looks to be a foreground star (I say that due to its brightness and the fact it has a starburst effect) and between the two frames, there seems to be a noticeable shift in position that doesn't occur with other objects.
- gliptic 4y agoYeap, this is very likely proper motion. That star is in our galaxy.
- shmageggy 4y agoI was wondering how you made that gif and looking for an option on the UI to automatically export one, but then I realized you are OP. That would be a cool feature to add.
- Azrael3000 4y agoFair enough, I misinterpreted GPs post. He and you are obviously correct.
- q1w2 4y ago
- nabla9 4y agoJWST and Hubble have roughly similar angular resolution. Hubble marginally better. JWST needs larger mirror for the same angular resolution because it uses longer wavelengths. Hubble: 0.04 arcsec at 500 nm JWST: 0.068 arcsec at 2 μm The difference is in wavelengths, image quality, and light collecting ability (size of the mirror). Hubble has to stare longer into a same spot to collect the same amount of light as JWST. (If I remember correctly JWST took this image in less than 12 hours, Hubble stared at it for much longer. Correct me if I'm wrong).
- sph 4y agoWould JWST have made a more detailed picture if it had stared on that spot as long as Hubble did?
- Synaesthesia 4y agoThe longer you "expose" the more detail is revealed yes.
- gliptic 4y agoResolution would not improve, but contrast would and you would be able to see fainter objects with less noise.
- 0x_rs 4y agoHubble's composite of SMACS took 5 orbits, which ends up being about a couple hours maximum. Most websites talked about the deep fields such as XDF (hundreds of orbits) while showing the comparison between the RELICS and JWST pictures, which I believe was very misleading from how this is repeated. Not to detract from its capabilities, of course.
- fvold 4y agoI want to see a comparison of the infrared from Hubble vs the infrared from James. I also want to normalize calling JWST just "James" :)
- Synaesthesia 4y agoThe Hubble only went into very near infrared, nothing like JWST. Also JWST is a million miles from earth so it is ultra cold. I like "James Webb Science Telescope" for JWST.
- falseprofit 4y agoJust Wonderful Space Telescope
- holoduke 4y agoWould there be a moment we cannot zoom in further because we hit the event horizon with the jwst? Or are there still hidden galaxies behind what we can see with the jwst?
- Cthulhu_ 4y agoI think it won't be a hard border per se, but it'll just turn into extremely redshifted noise at some point; beyond infrared you end up in microwaves, which leads to the cosmic microwave background radiation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
- falseprofit 4y agoThe furthest back potentially visible stuff before the dark age won’t be galaxies, which formed after the first stars. We still have never seen a first generation star, and I’d be surprised if Webb could.
- Synaesthesia 4y agoThis isn't a real image of an exoplanet right? The one in the background. Nowhere does it say that, which I think is beyond the ability of even JWST, to resolve an exoplanet at 50 light years? https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-reveals-steamy-atmosphere-of-distant-planet-in-detail https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-...
- hrnnnnnn 4y agoThe image in the background is an artist's rendition. The graph is the real image. Exoplanets are too far away and too small to image directly.
- Cthulhu_ 4y agoI do hope they can train the JWST at a close-by star and at least see a dot that represents an exoplanet.
- privong 4y ago> Exoplanets are too far away and too small to image directly. If you mean resolving details of the exoplanet, then yes that is currently true. But we have imaged exoplanets directly, meaning taken an image of a star where one can also see the planet directly in the image. [0] has a list of directly imaged exoplanets. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exopla...
- hrnnnnnn 4y agoWoah didn't know about that. The gif on that page is incredible!
- privong 4y agoIt's an impressive technique. Direct imaging finds planets that would be unlikely to be identified via other detection techniques (such as measuring the wobble in the parent star's radial velocity or measuring photometric eclipses as the planet passes between us and the parent star).
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y agoAs an aside, does anyone on HN know why one telescope’s name includes a first name and the other doesn’t. We don’t call the first telescope the Edwin Hubble Space Telescope
- q1w2 4y agoWebb is a much more common surname than Hubble.
- gumby 4y agoI think it's because they are two syllables. After a short time objects named after people* (Carnegie Mellon, FDR Drive etc) tend to lose the association with the person so honored and just become strings. This is doubly so for names of international scope. Think of Google, Facebook, Netflix, Workday, Coinbase: two syllables, each name an iamb (which is especially effective in English). Sure, there are numerous counterexamples (microsoft, Amazon), but generally the corners get knocked off and even turn into acronyms in public usage (GM, GE). Single syllables are too short for infrequently used words (this appears to be true for any language) -- you don't want to waste a lot of time saying "am" since you say it a lot; when you say "biceps" you want enough variability that your brain has time to parse it.