5 ms·

Truest is a problematic word in this stuff, JW as you say doesn't even see the visible spectrum, and I don't find it helpful to ask for the least-inspiring fict

Truest is a problematic word in this stuff, JW as you say doesn't even see the visible spectrum, and I don't find it helpful to ask for the least-inspiring fiction of those available. Arguably there is no "true" translation; the point of JW capturing what spectrum it does, is to reveal features obscured or invisible in the visible spectrum. Over the years I have come to reject the "what would the plain eye see" position as not helpful. We're tool-using monkeys and the phones we carry around now run supercomputers to quietly show not what the plain eye sees but something which works better for our needs—to be both evocative and information-rich. If and when we ever get a chance to gaze on Uranus ourselves, I myself imagine and hope it will be courtesy of some transformation of our embodiment that will look an order richer than even the most stylized images we have today, because they will be broad spectrum and be overlayed with semantic content rendered as perceptual to aid our executive functions... all of which will probably be running on some computation substrate other than our monkey mammal selves. Space isn't kind to those.

lsaferite 3y ago
FWIW, according to the specs the JWST starts at 600nm, which means it does at least cover the red visible spectrum. (R from RGB being 600-700nm per my understanding) It seems a shame they didn't include the 400-600nm range as well.
- dylan604 3y ago
  > It seems a shame they didn't include the 400-600nm range as well. This seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of the telescope.
  - hnburnsy 3y ago
    True color, visible spectrum images could help garner public support for missions like this. When I see these images, I imagine future humans enjoying a fly by, looking out a large transparent window, and seeing these amazing views.
    - wholinator2 3y ago
      What happens when the true color, visible spectrum images are exponentially less interesting and more dull? Does that increase public support? I don't think anyone in the "general public" cares or even realizes what exact wavelengths are captured and translated in every image, they care how awesome it looks. To my understand, you cannot see the rings of uranus in the visible range. And remember all those first images from the JWST, those garnered public support preeetty heavily and those were all infrared and translated. On the science side, some wavelengths just do not survive interstellar travel. You need the entire range to get the most data. Lots of times visible phenomena are just white or grey or blue anyways. When there's something that's actually more interesting in visible light, we'll see it.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        Let's also not forget that we have so many visible light telescopes already. JWST specifically needed to be a space platform way the hell away from the earth since it is essentially looking at heat. Being on earth or even in earth orbit would not be cold enough to make it worth while. Even still, we have to cool the systems because the heat from the electronics doing the science could interfere with its own readings. Once that coolant is gone, the platform will be pretty much useless. So it's not going to be wasting any time looking at things in the same spectrum that pretty much any telescope on the ground can do. Sure, we still have Hubble, but even the larger ground based telescopes with adaptive optics can see in more detail than Hubble at this point.
      - hnburnsy 3y ago
        Personally, I want reality, reality being what I would see if I fly by in a space ship.
        xwolfi 3y ago
        Completely wrong. What you see is a product of what you need to see, adapted by evolution over millions of years, so that you can survive on Earth a bit longer than 5 minutes. We're talking of seeing a barren planet millions of kms away, flying in space ships that are thousands of years away in the making: do you really REALLY think "reality" is what your eyes see now so you don't stumble around in the bright light shower of Earth ? If we have to survive in space, we'll have to see the rings of Uranus, if only to avoid them when we fly by in your space ship :)
- queuebert 3y ago
  Wavelength ranges for astronomical detectors are often tuned to the emissions of particular phenomena and for what gets through interstellar and intergalactic gas and dust the best. Unfortunately blue to green isn't very useful by these metrics.
cco 3y ago
I feel like it's relatively non-controversial to suggest "truest" would be something like what Uranus would look like out the window of your orbiting space craft. It's how we generally see pictures of Earth, e.g. from the point of view of a space walk from the ISS. If I look out the window of my spaceship and Uranus doesn't look like this photo, the post processing done here doesn't match with "reality" too well.

lsaferite 3y ago

FWIW, according to the specs the JWST starts at 600nm, which means it does at least cover the red visible spectrum. (R from RGB being 600-700nm per my understanding) It seems a shame they didn't include the 400-600nm range as well.

dylan604 3y ago
> It seems a shame they didn't include the 400-600nm range as well. This seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of the telescope.
- hnburnsy 3y ago
  True color, visible spectrum images could help garner public support for missions like this. When I see these images, I imagine future humans enjoying a fly by, looking out a large transparent window, and seeing these amazing views.
  - wholinator2 3y ago
    What happens when the true color, visible spectrum images are exponentially less interesting and more dull? Does that increase public support? I don't think anyone in the "general public" cares or even realizes what exact wavelengths are captured and translated in every image, they care how awesome it looks. To my understand, you cannot see the rings of uranus in the visible range. And remember all those first images from the JWST, those garnered public support preeetty heavily and those were all infrared and translated. On the science side, some wavelengths just do not survive interstellar travel. You need the entire range to get the most data. Lots of times visible phenomena are just white or grey or blue anyways. When there's something that's actually more interesting in visible light, we'll see it.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      Let's also not forget that we have so many visible light telescopes already. JWST specifically needed to be a space platform way the hell away from the earth since it is essentially looking at heat. Being on earth or even in earth orbit would not be cold enough to make it worth while. Even still, we have to cool the systems because the heat from the electronics doing the science could interfere with its own readings. Once that coolant is gone, the platform will be pretty much useless. So it's not going to be wasting any time looking at things in the same spectrum that pretty much any telescope on the ground can do. Sure, we still have Hubble, but even the larger ground based telescopes with adaptive optics can see in more detail than Hubble at this point.
    - hnburnsy 3y ago
      Personally, I want reality, reality being what I would see if I fly by in a space ship.
      - xwolfi 3y ago
        Completely wrong. What you see is a product of what you need to see, adapted by evolution over millions of years, so that you can survive on Earth a bit longer than 5 minutes. We're talking of seeing a barren planet millions of kms away, flying in space ships that are thousands of years away in the making: do you really REALLY think "reality" is what your eyes see now so you don't stumble around in the bright light shower of Earth ? If we have to survive in space, we'll have to see the rings of Uranus, if only to avoid them when we fly by in your space ship :)
queuebert 3y ago
Wavelength ranges for astronomical detectors are often tuned to the emissions of particular phenomena and for what gets through interstellar and intergalactic gas and dust the best. Unfortunately blue to green isn't very useful by these metrics.

cco 3y ago

I feel like it's relatively non-controversial to suggest "truest" would be something like what Uranus would look like out the window of your orbiting space craft. It's how we generally see pictures of Earth, e.g. from the point of view of a space walk from the ISS. If I look out the window of my spaceship and Uranus doesn't look like this photo, the post processing done here doesn't match with "reality" too well.