/sci/ - Science & Math

I was promised ayys

For the anon from the other thread asking on why galaxies are disk and not spheres, orbits cancel each other out so that in the end most of them agree with the net angular momentum of the galaxy.

I get restless looking at these pictures

Heres a little comparison I did of an area in the pictures

Quick rough side-to-side

>>14647281
So we effectively traded a real picture for some CGI color enhanced meaningless garbage?

>>14647456
jwst isnt real its just ai upscalling

are you even using the raw image data from hubble or just some jpg you found?

>$10 billion for slightly higher resolution images
I hate nasa so much it's unreal

>gravitation lensing

I used this image for >>14647409

https://archive.stsci.edu/missions/hlsp/relics/smacs0723-73/color_images/hlsp_relics_hst_acs-wfc3ir_smacs0723-73_multi_v1_color.png

>>14647474
imagine believing the light is bent, not their mirrors. it's just wobbles in their mirrors.

12hrs of exposure time for JWST, but I can't find how long it took for HST to take the comparable picture. Somebody on the internets is saying 3hrs, but I don't see the metadata in the FITS files.

>>14647536
I read it took hubble 2 weeks to collect all the data
also it says
>Hubble took 2 pics to capture...
I think it's supposed to be 2 weeks there

>>14647536
Billions of dollars for a guinness world record. Sick.

>>14647536
i mean, it's better, but i can't help but feeling underwhelmed

>>14647543
Yeah, I read that too. In theory JWST should get 7 times worth of Hubble's exposure time and more. But it seems odd to me for some reason, all un-embargoed publications are comparing this to HST's deepest fields (such as XDF, with 22 days of exposure time), talking about the 2-weeks, but in some it's not clear they're talking about its version of SMACS 0723. I'm just curious how different it really is and haven't found a definitive answer yet. Guess there'll be an answer soon.

>>14647536
yeah that's not worth 10 billion.people get this with a fucking iPhone 21 from the ground.

>>14647581
thats so fucking crazy looking that sun is so huge its curving the galaxy below it.

There's one very large red object in the center-right that's entirely missing from Hubble's.

>>14647615
so how deep can it see? how deep are we looking here?

>>14647626
From Nelson's statement in the video, some objects in it should be from13.5 billion years ago. But some other sources are saying it's about 600My after the Big Bang. I'm not sure. I hope they're going to release all the data tomorrow because it was very meagre.

>>14647647
scientifically speaking, what does the image on the left tell us that the image on the right doesn't? both show spiral galaxies.

>>14647456
>>14647457
cgi isn't real, it's just a dude with watercolors

>>14647647
Heres a little more about that
https://twitter.com/maddie9394/status/1546646919950262280/photo/1

>>14647587
The jwst image is smaller than one pixel of the visible sky in that pic.

>>14647660
Hubble's first deep field was sort of a bet used by some director with his discretionary time (the story is a pretty nice read). "Nobody" really knew it'd turn out the way it did, it wasn't really planned at the time. They highlighted some of the history of the universe and its phases. It's probably not the most time-effective scientific operation to do, but there's some value in them for sure (and reasons I'm not knowledgeable enough to talk about).
>>14647683
The 4.6 figure is SMACS' (the focus of the image), but some objects in it are much further, apparently they may be 300 millions from the beginning of it all.

>>14647587
That looks terrible lol

>>14647738
because your looking at it zoomed in ya fag. zoom out when you enlarge it.

>>14647713
wdym?

JWST seems to be a fucking joke.

Cant wait for that 30 meter telescope in Chile

>>14647753
no shit, and 360p videos look okay when you're 10 feet away from your phone

>>14647753
It looks terrible at any distance. It's scientifically worthless and also worthless as a wallpaper or print.

>>14647536
https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/relics/
>For each cluster, the team observed to 5-orbit depth with ACS and WFC3/IR. The team obtained 3 orbits of ACS imaging in F435W, F606W, and F814W (minus existing archival imaging) and 2 orbits of WFC3/IR imaging in F105W, F125W, F140W, F160W. Five of the clusters required two WFC3/IR pointings. For the 18 clusters with no existing ACS archival imaging, the team also obtained 3-orbit images of blank parallel fields with WFC3/IR F105W, F125W, F140W, F160W (2 orbits) and WFC3/UVIS F350LP (1 orbit) to search for additional high-redshift candidates as in the BoRG and HIPPIES surveys.
5 orbits. Hubble's picture exposure time was less than JWST's from what it seems. I think it's voluntarily misleading that all sites and NASA talk about the deep fields instead of comparing directly with the picture they're using of SMAC, since most articles on the announcement are very similar, even more serious websites, it's possible that they were given some directions on the presentation and this wasn't one of them

bruh I can do that in GIMP

Where's my $10 bill?

>>14647647
The stream is at 9:30 AM

>>14647593
That's a sun getting eaten by a black hole.

>>14647587
>Webb’s image covers a patch of sky approximately the size of a grain of sand held at arm’s length by someone on the ground – and reveals thousands of galaxies in a tiny sliver of vast universe
I want you to take a photo of a grain of sand on the tip of your outstretched finger
I'm curious

>>14647463
NASA hasn't released any raw image data you mongoloid

>>14647753
are you seriously this retarded?

>>14647325
Thank you, peasant.

>>14647587
this is one of the most retarded things I've read this year, congratulations

More true comparison with similar colors.

>>14649330
>230 KB JPG

>>14647564
yeah. i wish that it could just be better. it still feels like we're really early.
i remember being in elementary school and seeing a picture of pluto in an encyclopedia, and i thought it was crazy that we had pictures of something that far away.
and now pic related.
but, what a wretched shame it is that the development is so early.

>>14649334
90% of people do not pixel peep.

Homogenized color brings out the details way better. It looks like a 1 year change between cameras on smartphones. NOT WORTH 10 BILLION.

>>14649347
>NOT WORTH 10 BILLION.
it's already spent, mate.

>>14649356
There will be no next LHC and there will be no next JWST. Exactly because of this.

Scientists have no idea what the general public wants and what they want to hear when billions are spent. It's tragically funny.

>>14647281
if you moved Hubble a million miles closer, you would get the same image

>>14649347
Here's a better comparison I found
https://youtu.be/knRGQci4EJw
YouTube isn't the best medium for a comparison this minute, but it gives a better idea of the difference.

>>14649366
you don't get a say in it. you get exactly as much say as you get for the army spending $200 million on buying a new rifle with the NGSW program.
or mailing checks to people as covid relief.
that is to say, you have no say in it, and it will keep happening.

>>14647647
It basically means, the theory is shit because objects that old shouldn't be so well-formed. Recent decade prove constantly that our understanding of the most fundamental things is wrong

>>14647474
Based perfectionist autist

New leaked image from JWST

>>14649392
really cool. means we need to come up with a new one.

>>14649398
judging how much we can't deal with the complexity of current theories, I'm not sure if we can create anything smarter. Perhaps, we need to go to the basics again but this is also dubious. Honestly, who even knows if it's possible to make things better with the way our brain works.
From a naturalistic point of view there is no good argument to say that our brains evolved to grasp things which were always hidden from our senses.

>>14649404
>judging how much we can't deal with the complexity of current theories, I'm not sure if we can create anything smarter.
as it has always been. current theories were the best we could do, until we could do better. making predictions about the future is hard, of course, but assuming we've reached maximum understanding has been proven wrong over and over.

>From a naturalistic point of view there is no good argument to say that our brains evolved to grasp things which were always hidden from our senses.
the ability for man to conceptualize that which is beyond himself was core to how we have come this far. "this food makes you sick, but cook it and it doesn't".

>>14647761
The area of sky included in the JWST pic would take up less than one pixel of space in anon's iphone pic taken from earth.

>>14649419
>as it has always been. current theories were the best we could do, until we could do better.
wrong. current theories in their complete form are understood by a fraction of people who could fully understood theories decades earlier. this means that even the smartest people will have a hard time solving more complex issues. look at ed witten and tell me honestly if he really did any good and didn't just create a math fantasy.
> but assuming we've reached maximum understanding has been proven wrong over and over.
again, we can prove that the theory gets harder over and over again by just looking at the fact that someone who could understand almost all of physics decades ago, now can only deal with some fraction of it. at some point only prodigies can deal with it and it may not be enough to solve further problems.
>the ability for man to conceptualize that which is beyond himself was core to how we have come this far. "this food makes you sick, but cook it and it doesn't".
not really. our math is based on observations, on experience. we can go beyond that but we immediately lose the ability to judge what makes sense and what doesn't. this is why modern physics has so many dead ends - you can't really tell if something is real or not just by looking at the fancy math. there may be a point where physics is just too alien for our brains to comprehend.
> also, the idea we can create something out of nothing is just wrong - it's like trying to imagine what it would be like to live in 4 dimensional space.

>>14649437
>wrong. current theories in their complete form are understood by a fraction of people who could fully understood theories decades earlier. this means that even the smartest people will have a hard time solving more complex issues. look at ed witten and tell me honestly if he really did any good and didn't just create a math fantasy.
we're not limited by just things you can do in your head.
a human with a calculator can solve complex math problems faster than any human could. in the same way, we can run simulations and models with computers which would be impossible to manifest otherwise.

> the fact that someone who could understand almost all of physics decades ago, now can only deal with some fraction of it
specialization is the way progress works. that's human efficiency on every level. when agriculture was invented, humans no longer had to devote all their time to seeking out food, and now people could specialize at farming, or pottery making, or whatever.
as disciplines of whatever field become more complex, more focused specializations emerge. a modern chemist is not an expert at every aspect of chemistry; they may focus on specifically organic chemistry, and within that, specifically polymer chemistry, and within that specifically bio-derived polymers.

or doctors, who were once generalists, now focus on a specific discipline as our understanding of the field has improved.

that shouldn't come as a surprise. specialization is what humans do.

>we can go beyond that but we immediately lose the ability to judge what makes sense and what doesn't.
only if you don't understand the rules. chess can seem incomprehensible and arbitrary if you don't know how the pieces can move.
with something like physics, we weren't given a set of rules to explain how it works, we are just figuring it out. and as we test and determine what is really going on, it enables people to actually understand.
as in, knowing that cooking food destroys the bacteria in it.

>>14647456
Ah yes, the usual tinfoil dude on /sci/
Thanks for confirming I am still real.

>>14647469
There is a kabbal cult in CERN and cannibalist rituals take place every 5th of each month in LHC.

>>14647558

Sound like a wagecuck blue collar. We will not give you gibs and we will keep spending billions of dollars to fund more research your low IQ brain can't appreciate.
The neat part is that these billions will come from the taxes you pay. Cope.

I love these kind of stuff. Spending tons of money to go fucking nowhere.

>>14647469
probably within 5 years some low end oppo devices will be doing the same thing

how long until todays press conference

>>14647615

These images are great. People who think otherwise are simply uneducated and possibly retarded.

>>14647615
Likely because JWST can see deeper into infrared than Hubble.

>>14647484
Light isn't bent, spacetime is.

>>14649666
Isn't it live now? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

>>14649437
I came to similar conclusions a while ago, but this line of thought itself is just another fork in the road of possibility, not sure how much use there is to dwell on it.

Talk about diminishing returns