Hey Fraser. Thank you so much for answering my Dinosaurs in space question. I am glad so many other people enjoyed it as well 👍 I have two more questions one might be a little weird 😅 1. I read once that the Apollo Astronauts said that the moon smells like gunpowder. So I was wondering, what do the other worlds out there smell and taste like? Mercury like vanilla? Mars like salami and Enceladus like lemon? 😉 2. Is it possible that certain stars at some point cool down so much that the surface turns solid and you could theoretically land a probe on it? Thanks again for all the great content and the informative and entertaining hours and hours you are providing.
Pretty sure stars like our sun that don't go supernova and end up becoming white dwarfs will eventually over billions of years cool down and basically be a solid diamond. They will still be very massive though so whether anyone could ever walk on it or set a probe down on it would depend on having some advanced technology I would imagine, as their gravity would be many times that of earth's. Biggest problem is just how long it takes for them to radiate all their heat away, as far as I know there's really not been enough time for any to have done this yet since what we believe was the start of the universe 13.8 billion years ago or whatever the figure is now days. Firstly there weren't stars like our sun right away of course, secondly they live for about 10 billion years or so at least, so just hasn't been enough time. For even smaller red dwarf stars that are the most common they live so long that not a single one of them have died yet and have possibly trillions of years left to live. This is my understanding of the answer to your question at least.
What a wonderful classroom I have had the awesome most awesome pleasure of being in today. I cannot move and I cannot speak my jaw is on my lap My eyes are stuck wide open I am in literal heaven. Thank sll of you each and every one of YOU incredible people for this priceless gift. Thanks and Thanks and ever Thanks.
Question: Could you look at a gravitationally lensed object through another gravitationally lensed object? Is there a point at which returns on such observations might be nonexistent, or could we theoretically keep magnifying a very distant object as long as there’s always another large object in front of it and there’s been enough time for its light to reach us?
Regarding the first question about colored space images. In practical science, how does redshift and that sort of thing interact with filter choice? I mean you're not going to be able to see a hydrogen line if the Galaxy is significantly red shifted if you're using the same filter that you would use to look at Proxima Centauri. Do they have filters for all of the ranges? Do they overlap?
Great episode Frazier, the dark matter discussion and water-mystery discussion was on-point. When thinking about the distribution of molecules and atoms in the greater universe, I always think about Neil D Tyson’s point on the fact that Hydrogen and Oxygen are two of the most abundant elements in space, and that water should therefore be insanely common all over the place.
Some scientists (eg B Cox) are saying there is more universe (stars and galaxies) beyond what we can see and observe. How can the universe extend beyond what we can see when the CMB is the beginning of time? Is the CMB not the boundary of all matter, by definition?
Hi Fraser, in using color filters, how do they assign colors to different elements like oxygen, hydrogen, sulfer etc. Is it randomly chosen or is there any logic to it?
I would like to add as far as the JWST color is concerned: When elements absorb or emit light of a specific color there is also absorption and emission bands in the IR range, most of the time moreso than in visual light. Using this information we could match( if desired) the IR spectrum with the known chemicals and what they would appear as in the visual range meaning if we wished to we could easily produce a color image which matches our visual spectrum.
Question: Dark matter is thought to "out mass" baryonic matter, what will it take for gravi-metric observatories (ligo, virgo etc) to detectdark matter interactions, rather than "just" "gravity bright" merging blackholes etc?
This video is a good description of the process and rationale for false or pseudo color images ubiquitous in astronomical imagery, also for earth science satellite photos and many other fields, but it misses what the JWST team is doing, at least as per Dr. Becky's video. I mentioned this in my reply to your answer in previous video. The light from these very distant objects is going to be hugely redshifted, so the visible spectrum, from say .4-.65 microns will now be at say 4-6.5 microns. They will use the filters you mentioned to divide the red-shifted light into ranges that correspond to the RGB ranges in visible light. This would result in 3 images that could then be combined to look very close to what the objects would look like if they had no red shift, a reasonably _true_ full color image. I hope that makes sense. They're going to essentially de-red shift the image.
Love these. I always learn so much. I’m proud to be part of that 5% of female viewers and I think you’re right; one of the most important things to increasing diversity is giving those minorities within the community the spotlight. You and the team do a fantastic job with that. Thank you for all you do.
36:00 Corellia I would believe, that with the diversity you need to realize the reaction lag time this will have. People of diverse background who are parents now, will get informed by what you do and show and encourage their kids to look at previously not considered fields of work. I believe the work you do will sadly, but also gladly, see it's real results in 15-20 years. So let us just continue doing the right thing and inform the community too, that this is not a matter that can be forced in a year or two, ever.
Since we have never spent any time at the LaGrange Points around Earth until just recently, and they purportedly have unique gravitational properties that we plan to make use of for 'parking' instruments/structures (gateways), how could we assume them as devoid of space meteorites as 'general space' is? Perhaps JWST is just a very expensive target for the higher than normal concentrations of particulates that result from the low gravity fields we call LaGrange Points. I just learned of another space mission that will park a comet chaser robotic vehicle in an LP awaiting a passing comet to interact with. Despite the decades it took to get JWST in place, we never 'checked out' the neighborhood before deciding to use it as our experimental zone. How much of a gamble is it to rely on our meager understanding and experience of LPs to design very complex and, thus expensive, experimental projects?
Regarding "Corellia" Question: You should focus on merits, scirentific achievements. Diversity should be a factor only after the merit factor is looked at first.
Question: Who designs and how is the designing process for instruments like JWST or the LHC? Do you send specs to Northrop Grumman and see what they come up with, do you send a detailed drawing, do all the stakeholders send in their instruments and then bold everything together? In short, how do go from an idea to nuts and bolds on a complex one of project, and who designs it?
Question. Launching rockets can get a bit of help from the spin of the earth. I think the equator is better. If we could build a space elevator is there places on earth that would be beneficial and why.
Hey Fraser! What do the astronauts do in the event of a medical emergency? How about a dental one? Are the astronauts trained in extracting a painful tooth?
Wow, the x-ray image of the crab nebula, creepy 🎃 Are there any file formats available that would allow one to go through all the different frequencies like a slider, even pick out layers and and mix them myself? Or do I have to go to the raw data? What do I need to work with raw data anyway? Is there a catalog of url's showing where what data is at, like a card catalog.
Re: "Naboo" If you revolve the torus created by -5°/+45° from the plane normal to the radii from JWST to the Sun about Earth's nominal orbit there's nowhere (at a distance larger than a few AU) that is completely inaccessible, but there are places that are extremely inefficient to look at. This is true for simple heliocentric orbits as well as the L2 orbitals.
At 14:22 there's an animation of light being reflected by Webb's mirrors. Why the two reflections inside the cone in the middle? Doesn't each reflection adds noise to the image?
Couldn't we observe "a thing" with the known good part of the telescope, then observe it with the segment that was hit and calculate out the defect for all future observations?
You make the point that the JWST sees wavelengths of light we cannot and that a computer creates a visible color image from these wavelengths . While true, I prefer to think about it as digitally blue-shifting the target back into the visible range before the expansion of the universe red-shifted it out of the visible range. This is assuming the filters used have wavelengths spaced at roughly the same intervals as visible red, green, and blue light.
In astrophotography you don't have to keep the wavelengths in the same order. You can also create false color images to show certain features in the data. Quite often HSO is used for RGB although hydrogen and sulphur are both in the red spectrum.
Star formation. This is my understanding. A cloud of gas contracts under gravitational attraction. At the center a proto sun forms Under the immense pressure, the fusion reaction starts in the core, and the sun heats up. That produces a large stellar wind that blows away the remaining gas cloud leaving planets What I don't then understand is how massive stars form. At some point, lets assume one solar mass, you get that fusion ignition, the solar wind stars, blows the remaining gas away, stopping the star from getting larger. And yet there are stars [R136a1] at 265 times the solar mass. Now this is mass is clearly very different from size. After all the sun will go red giant at some point. So how do large mass stars form?
Off the back of your answer mentioning what would happen if there was an ice cube in orbit around the sun inside the asteriod belt, I am just wondering if we could make a comet by launching a block of ice into a similar solar orbit to earth's? How big do you think the ice block would need to be to see it as a comet from earth with the unaided eye & how long do you think it would last? I wonder if there would be any science that could be done seeing how a comet of known components acted compared to the comets we don't know the exact composition for? thanks for all you do
Here's a question I have about the conservation of information law. Has that been proven? Like if you burn a book and throw it in a black hole, will the information in that book still be retrievable? It seems like they are going through a lot of trouble trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing if you just accept that information can be lost. Like the evaporating black hole theory from Stephen Hawking. Why not just except that the information is gone. What happens when the last proton in the universe decays? Where is the information then? Oh well, keep up the great work. Love your videos and have been watching them for quite some time now.
I want to stay positive I'm gonna think of JW as a space rock collector Ultra-Sensitive Impactor, precision measurement device And proof of concept for future telescopes
@30:30 I wonder how many nit pickers are going to say “that’s not Jupiter”. Good vid. Btw, panspermia need not make the assumption that life started on a planet.
While people love the pictures so people have been disappointed. But the real and most important part of JWST, is the science that will be done and the paper’s written so please people stop saying it’s not worth it just because the pictures don’t impress you in particular. And yes it cost over a billion but that’s not in just one year or one country really and truly.
Frasier, is the universe expanding chaotically, from a single point, or uniformly? Also, is it possible to see before the big bang, maybe with future optics? Love you as always
Are there any fotos of nebula or else, that are actually in visual light? I mean fotos colored in a way my eyes would see the nebula too? I am just interested in how these would look like.
That was fascinating about where our water came from. Couldn't a scientist calculate how many comets would have to strike Earth in a certain amount of time to deliver the amount of water we have? Anyway, what about all the water on Europa and other moons? Where did that come from? They wouldn't have the gravity of Earth in order to pull comets in.
Thats probably a stupid question but do you think that technology is something that has a limit and it can be advanced with a limit or it will be getting better and beter forever
33:17 Geonosis that light constantly passes us by. you never see today's lights again. and yes, we were closer to those stars. but they live long. And light moves with a finite speed through our ever stretching space-time. Imagine us (Earth and the star) like 2 kids on a relatively slowly stretching carpet. The one kid throws a candy at the other once a second. Some candy hit the other kid, some fly past him. Those candies are today's photons. Maybe they hit, maybe they miss, but the 2nd kid will never ever see them arrive again. Then the carpet stretches a bit, but the first kid is still throwing candies, still hitting and missing the other kid. And if the first kid stops throwing, there will be some candies incoming, somewhere between the 2 kids in the air. The 1st kid already stopped, but the 2nd one still feels and sees the incoming candies of course, if the carpet stretches faster than those candies fly, then those candies never reach the 2nd kid. Based on current science, that's how the universe will be officially fuggd :- )
Are there stars and galaxies below earth? Like all the pictures seem like they're taken "above" the earth (north pole). It's hard to imagine there is anything below the south pole. Will JWST take photos pointing down?
Yes, there are stars and galaxies 'below' Earth, as the first explorers of the Southern hemisphere found: lots of new constellations. Europe has an observatory (ESO) dedicated to studying the Southern hemisphere sky. Orientation in images taken by space telescopes is hard to tell.
If space x get the starship up and running will it be worth a trip to Hubble to give it a boost and fix the hardware that’s failing. James web sounds amazing but Hubble is still doing amazing work and when we have this why let it burn up?
In regards to your Tatooine answer, why don’t more astronomers delineate between a scientifically rendered photo vs a real world this is what your eyes would see photo. I feel like photos from Hubble and other telescopes aren’t often labeled clearly, and what would you say are the accurate labels 1. Real world eye vs 2. Scientifically generated ?? Frustrating that as a consumer I often don’t know if I’m looking at the former or the latter. What percent would you say are generated color photos, 90%? Does that mean the vast majority of the universe is in fact real world visually blah gray dust. That’s really boring if it’s true and most people IMO don’t realize it if so because they see Hubble photos and think that’s what it looks like. Please correct me if I’m wrong
Telescopes can take long exposures, which makes them look really cool. So I'd say 0.1% of pictures you see match what your eye would see. Maybe pictures of Jupiter, Saturn or Mars, or maybe an asteroid. Your eyeballs just can't collect photons long enough.
If you look at the original file you will often find the information in “more info”. Let’s take the iconic picture of “Eagle Nebula - Pillars of creation”. The information in the original file will tell you: “ The picture is composed of 32 different images from four separate cameras in this instrument. The photograph was made with light emitted by different elements in the cloud and appears as a different colour in the composite image: green for hydrogen, red for singly-ionized sulphur and blue for double-ionized oxygen atoms. The missing part at the top right is because one of the four cameras has a magnified view of its portion, which allows astronomers to see finer detail. The images from this camera were scaled down in size to match those from the other three cameras. Further information at: Credit: NASA, Jeff Hester, and Paul Scowen (Arizona State University)”
@@rhoddryice5412 fair enough, but my point is from general public’s angle… they won’t read tiny footprint that long u have to seek out. I would suggest every enhanced non natural eye photo be flagged with a huge asterisk and the label “computer enhanced” directly on the image itself. The Vast majority of ppl are building an image of the cosmos that is not based in an experienced reality as our life on ear is, is my point. It’s kind of a lie
@@Ed-jg3ud And speaking about this European Southern Observatory (ESO) just uploaded 26 seconds video with observations from optical to radio of 30 Doradus. You should check it out and read the description for more information. =)
Here's a question Mr Cain. Granite I'm only a high school grad, but it was a private Christian high School. LOL if the light we see the furthest distance away is 13.8 billion years old shouldn't we see nothing in the opposite direction? It just doesn't seem to make sense to me that we can have a 360° by 360° view of the universe or essentially we see nothing but galaxies and every direction we look. Was the Big bang a central location or is the Big bang an outer location? I'm not being critical with this question believe me, it's just truly a question I can't seem to grasp. But then again I am but finite and the universe is infinite I'm sure you understand as well as I do that the finite cannot comprehend the infinite and I think they're in lies the question. Let me know what you think, I'm looking forward to hearing your response..
We can see to 13+ bn lightyears in every direction. That tells us one thing: the edge of the universe (if there is one) is more than 13 bn lightyears away from us in all directions. The question 'where are we relative to the location of the Big Bang' has a counterintuitive answer. You can't compare it to an explosion, that has stuff flying away from the point of the explosion. Following the path of that stuff back to its origin allows you to pinpoint where the explosion took place. The Big Bang was an explosion of space itself. We're inside that explosion/expansion that's still going on. We see stuff moving away from us, but observers in another galaxy see everything moving away from them.
2:36 Fraser Cain made his own stock footage! I am impressed and I have an idea! Fraser, please make stock footage! Extra monies and profit for more Universe Today news!
This was filmed when we made an episode about how to do astrophotography: th-cam.com/video/h2OmeL0qO_Y/w-d-xo.html We do have more stock footage-ish video from other times we filmed on location in places, like the Kennedy Space Center, a cruise in Central America, and Hawaii that could be useful for it. It's an interesting idea that we have thrown around before. The edited videos are all released with a CC license anyways and have been re-edited and shown on television.
19:00 The problem with Dark matter is with Science we generally find something that breaks the rules causing us to discard our hypothesis and we have not done that with DM and DE. Instead we kept our hypothesis and are gluing on pieces with the idea that it will make sense eventually instead of going back to square one and that really bothers me. This could all be done away with if they go allllll the way back and review our understanding of what a particle is. Something akin to Pilot wave theory makes Dark matter and Dark energy vanish. You can recreate the exact structures right now with the same rotational velocities throwing extremely fine power onto a vibrating plate. That would be a simplified model of course but it demonstrates the principles rather well of matter being standing waves in an inviscid fluid.
What's the square one? As I said, there are facts like the expansion rate of the Universe, or the rotation speed of galaxies. We're in the hypothesis phase, trying to think of ideas that could explain them. Do you disagree with the facts?
@@frasercain Unfortunately in this case square one is likely Relatively itself which is difficult for me to say out loud because I personally believe that it, and not the standard model, is our most successful theory to date. At the very least some part of our understanding of gravity is likely wrong. I don't disagree with the facts at all, quite the opposite as the facts are suggesting our hypothesis are grossly mistaken and do not model 95% of our energy and mass in the universe. The parts of science I disagree with, because it kind of feels unscientific, is the belief that obviously our models must be correct and instead we just can't perceive the missing matter and energy. Using your analogy it would be akin to hearing the noise from your car and assuming it's a rock in the tire yet after checking for the rock and not seeing one you simply assume the rock is inside of the tire and can't be observed. After which you continue to formulate solutions on how to remove the rock. In my opinion it makes more sense to contemplate new hypothesis on the cause of the noise. Thats all, nothing really against your communication of our current understanding. Sorry if it came off that way. Just more of a pet peeve I have with the trajectory of that field of science. It feels like chasing ghost instead of considering that perhaps it was just the house settling or the pipes knocking.
There's either some flaw in our understanding of gravity/spacetime or there is some massive particle opaque in the electromagnetic spectrum. According to Occam's razor, the winner is......
Do you think it would be possible for SpaceX to design a starlink satellite that could maybe once and awhile snatch a piece of space debris up before reentry? Thanks for all the amazing content Fraser!
Corellia question had a good answer. Show an example or allow people to show an example. The best person is the best person. If they happen to be white male, that does not mean look for someone else who is not to be PC.... if being PC is what we spend time on, no work will be done. I used to work somewhere that a visible minority always had priority over some who was not even if the non-visible minority person were really good at the job, even if the person who did get hired had to be trained from the ground up (like trained to the minimum requirements others had to have just to apply). At the end they were still not very good and the product suffered. However, if the best person is a visible minority grab them quick. By the way, anyone can be a visible minority, even a white male, even in Vancouver.
I'm assuming James Webb will be doing its own deep field to search for extremely high redshift galaxies at some point. Do we know when that'll be started? I wanna see the ultra high redshift galaxies (maybe in redshift 20s potentially)
That's why it has the huge sunshield. That location puts the Earth, Sun and Moon all in the same location in the sky, and then it's blocked by the sunshield. Really clever idea.
Now we know how to build JWST. I think the same team should build another, and should be cheaper ans faster to place into another orbit to view what the first one can't. Is it possible to do a second JWST 2.0 for a polar Lagrange (or L3) so we can realize a 360° view?
Webb can look into all directions, just not at the same time. For objects directly "above it" we have to wait a month or two, for objects behind the Sun, six months at most. Building another clone of Webb would be a colossal waste of money. The next space telescope will have a very different set of instruments to let us see different kinds of objects, maybe X-ray, or maybe even gravitational.
@@milobem4458 I believe we agree on more than otherwise. I know it can't 'see' everywhere. JWST can never expose it's hiney (cool side) to the Sun, so nah, it can't see everywhere but damn near close.. I haven't looked into L3, I don't know or care enough. If u do, learn me somein'. I think we would be best served with another JWST 3.0 with a Martian L point should be next. Better cooling further away. Make it autonomously serviceable before sending. We can't yet achieve and maintain cryo (cool enough) at L2 conditions since its not serviceable at this time. They are trying to make it serviceable running test here for an autonomous trip to JWST. That's great, yes, but use it on another launch to a cooler place, lower gravity at one of the Mars L point satellite orbits. What ya think?
They are the codewords for each question. When you include it in your comment, then it gets added to the tally and the question with the most votes gets a shout-out in the next edited episode after we've tallied them up.
Evidence indicates today with expansion the current distance from where the light left is 46.51 billion light years and it has a redshift of 1,091 indicating an expansion 1,092x since the light left. This indicates it was around 43 million light years away at the time of emission
❓When scientists talk about the search for life in the universe, how exactly do they define "life"? Is there any chemistry other than RNA/DNA-based that has been hypothesized as a potentially feasible candidate for other life forms❓
Tatooine - This is the fundamental thing those weirdo flat people can't grasp. "It's a composite image" - 'yes, that's the idea...like your cell phone you're using to try 'prove' me wrong'...lol Great explanation Fraser. Edit: Hoth - ouch, too soon man! *averts eyes*
Hey! I'm grateful i found this place where questions are answered in such a detailed way. I was always wondering, not really related to space, but physics, if the speed of light has a hard limit but we don't have a hard limit on the slowest speed in the universe, can we say that the speed of light is actually the slowest speed (zero) and every other speed is just moving faster relative to it? Thanks! Great show
My 3d mind says JW telescope should be able to see _any_ part of the sky at some time of the year. Or is it not able to see at as low as 90 degrees to the Sun? From the construction it looks like it should be able to see at less than 90 degrees but there may be some design reason why it would not reach as low as that. JW can obviously see in any direction directly away from the Sun at some time of year. If it can only go as low as 90 degrees to the Sun that would leave a "tube" of area the width of it's orbit around the Sun, nadir to Earth's orbit. Anything less than 90 degrees would reduce that tube to a cone. At 45 degrees that cone would basically include anything inside the orbit of JW around the Sun... where it really doesn't want to see anyway. I am guessing that moving the shade so it is not 90 degrees to the Sun would import some off centre force that would need correction but is JW not able to point parallel to the shade?
If the speed of light is not in fact constant but instead it has changed slightly over time, would this not look exactly the same as an accelerating expansion?
@@rasverixxyleighraq1509 Thanks. I guess the implication would be that the speed of light at a particular time is in some way related to the current age (or volume) of the Universe
As far as I’m aware, we don’t know enough about dark matter to know that dark matter is one thing and not in fact be multiple things. So dark matter could be WIMPs AND primordial black holes AND an unknown subatomic particle.
You have quickly become one of my favorite channels on TH-cam. Keep up the great work!
Hey Fraser. Thank you so much for answering my Dinosaurs in space question. I am glad so many other people enjoyed it as well 👍
I have two more questions one might be a little weird 😅
1. I read once that the Apollo Astronauts said that the moon smells like gunpowder. So I was wondering, what do the other worlds out there smell and taste like? Mercury like vanilla? Mars like salami and Enceladus like lemon? 😉
2. Is it possible that certain stars at some point cool down so much that the surface turns solid and you could theoretically land a probe on it?
Thanks again for all the great content and the informative and entertaining hours and hours you are providing.
Pretty sure stars like our sun that don't go supernova and end up becoming white dwarfs will eventually over billions of years cool down and basically be a solid diamond. They will still be very massive though so whether anyone could ever walk on it or set a probe down on it would depend on having some advanced technology I would imagine, as their gravity would be many times that of earth's. Biggest problem is just how long it takes for them to radiate all their heat away, as far as I know there's really not been enough time for any to have done this yet since what we believe was the start of the universe 13.8 billion years ago or whatever the figure is now days. Firstly there weren't stars like our sun right away of course, secondly they live for about 10 billion years or so at least, so just hasn't been enough time. For even smaller red dwarf stars that are the most common they live so long that not a single one of them have died yet and have possibly trillions of years left to live. This is my understanding of the answer to your question at least.
i do appreciate the diversity of guests you have on it is really cool :)
This channel is sublime. So much information. Such great questions, answered in such depth.
What a wonderful classroom I have had the awesome most awesome pleasure of being in today. I cannot move and I cannot speak my jaw is on my lap
My eyes are stuck wide open
I am in literal heaven. Thank sll of you each and every one of YOU incredible people for this priceless gift. Thanks and Thanks and ever Thanks.
Awesome answers and great imagery.. Well done Fraser and Team!
Question: Could you look at a gravitationally lensed object through another gravitationally lensed object? Is there a point at which returns on such observations might be nonexistent, or could we theoretically keep magnifying a very distant object as long as there’s always another large object in front of it and there’s been enough time for its light to reach us?
Regarding the first question about colored space images. In practical science, how does redshift and that sort of thing interact with filter choice? I mean you're not going to be able to see a hydrogen line if the Galaxy is significantly red shifted if you're using the same filter that you would use to look at Proxima Centauri. Do they have filters for all of the ranges? Do they overlap?
Great episode Frazier, the dark matter discussion and water-mystery discussion was on-point.
When thinking about the distribution of molecules and atoms in the greater universe, I always think about Neil D Tyson’s point on the fact that Hydrogen and Oxygen are two of the most abundant elements in space, and that water should therefore be insanely common all over the place.
Some scientists (eg B Cox) are saying there is more universe (stars and galaxies) beyond what we can see and observe. How can the universe extend beyond what we can see when the CMB is the beginning of time? Is the CMB not the boundary of all matter, by definition?
Just love of how this is all explained for the not so well knowing spectator. Well done, thanks.
Hi Fraser, in using color filters, how do they assign colors to different elements like oxygen, hydrogen, sulfer etc. Is it randomly chosen or is there any logic to it?
Here's a great article from Astrobackyard that goes into a lot of detail about it: astrobackyard.com/narrowband-imaging/
I would like to add as far as the JWST color is concerned: When elements absorb or emit light of a specific color there is also absorption and emission bands in the IR range, most of the time moreso than in visual light. Using this information we could match( if desired) the IR spectrum with the known chemicals and what they would appear as in the visual range meaning if we wished to we could easily produce a color image which matches our visual spectrum.
Question: Dark matter is thought to "out mass" baryonic matter, what will it take for gravi-metric observatories (ligo, virgo etc) to detectdark matter interactions, rather than "just" "gravity bright" merging blackholes etc?
Bespin 22:30 For the final “Car analogy”.
First time I’m voting. =)
Tatooine, great episode!
This video is a good description of the process and rationale for false or pseudo color images ubiquitous in astronomical imagery, also for earth science satellite photos and many other fields, but it misses what the JWST team is doing, at least as per Dr. Becky's video. I mentioned this in my reply to your answer in previous video. The light from these very distant objects is going to be hugely redshifted, so the visible spectrum, from say .4-.65 microns will now be at say 4-6.5 microns. They will use the filters you mentioned to divide the red-shifted light into ranges that correspond to the RGB ranges in visible light. This would result in 3 images that could then be combined to look very close to what the objects would look like if they had no red shift, a reasonably _true_ full color image. I hope that makes sense. They're going to essentially de-red shift the image.
Yeah, I think Dr. Becky's video was a really great explanation and I'll definitely be incorporating that into my future answers on this subject.
Fraser Cain. Definitely enjoy watching and listening! His personality is funny and sarcastic! Love it
It makes sense regarding the light from 13.8 billion years ago. Looking back in time
Bespin. Liked your explanation.
Love these. I always learn so much. I’m proud to be part of that 5% of female viewers and I think you’re right; one of the most important things to increasing diversity is giving those minorities within the community the spotlight. You and the team do a fantastic job with that. Thank you for all you do.
Thanks for your patience with the questions 🙏
You're one of the good ones!
Hey Fraser, my fav this episode is Mustafar. Also, when do you think sea level rise will affect the Florida launch sites?
36:00 Corellia
I would believe, that with the diversity you need to realize the reaction lag time this will have. People of diverse background who are parents now, will get informed by what you do and show and encourage their kids to look at previously not considered fields of work.
I believe the work you do will sadly, but also gladly, see it's real results in 15-20 years.
So let us just continue doing the right thing and inform the community too, that this is not a matter that can be forced in a year or two, ever.
Since we have never spent any time at the LaGrange Points around Earth until just recently, and they purportedly have unique gravitational properties that we plan to make use of for 'parking' instruments/structures (gateways), how could we assume them as devoid of space meteorites as 'general space' is? Perhaps JWST is just a very expensive target for the higher than normal concentrations of particulates that result from the low gravity fields we call LaGrange Points. I just learned of another space mission that will park a comet chaser robotic vehicle in an LP awaiting a passing comet to interact with. Despite the decades it took to get JWST in place, we never 'checked out' the neighborhood before deciding to use it as our experimental zone. How much of a gamble is it to rely on our meager understanding and experience of LPs to design very complex and, thus expensive, experimental projects?
great animation on color rendering
Thanks! I'm glad it came out well and wasn't too finicky.
JWST did not disappoint! 🙂
Regarding "Corellia" Question: You should focus on merits, scirentific achievements. Diversity should be a factor only after the merit factor is looked at first.
Question: Who designs and how is the designing process for instruments like JWST or the LHC? Do you send specs to Northrop Grumman and see what they come up with, do you send a detailed drawing, do all the stakeholders send in their instruments and then bold everything together?
In short, how do go from an idea to nuts and bolds on a complex one of project, and who designs it?
95% male?! I'm happy to be in the 5%... as usually in this life, in everything that interests me :P
Question. Launching rockets can get a bit of help from the spin of the earth. I think the equator is better. If we could build a space elevator is there places on earth that would be beneficial and why.
Such good questions and answers
Hey Fraser! What do the astronauts do in the event of a medical emergency? How about a dental one? Are the astronauts trained in extracting a painful tooth?
Wow, the x-ray image of the crab nebula, creepy 🎃
Are there any file formats available that would allow one to go through all the different frequencies like a slider, even pick out layers and and mix them myself? Or do I have to go to the raw data?
What do I need to work with raw data anyway? Is there a catalog of url's showing where what data is at, like a card catalog.
Did you forget the link to Doctor Becky's Video? I can go look myself I guess. She's great.
Re: "Naboo" If you revolve the torus created by -5°/+45° from the plane normal to the radii from JWST to the Sun about Earth's nominal orbit there's nowhere (at a distance larger than a few AU) that is completely inaccessible, but there are places that are extremely inefficient to look at. This is true for simple heliocentric orbits as well as the L2 orbitals.
Becky is awesome :)
Has an astronaut doing a spacewalk ever been hit by a micro meteorite? What would be the effects? Is there a protocol?
At 14:22 there's an animation of light being reflected by Webb's mirrors. Why the two reflections inside the cone in the middle? Doesn't each reflection adds noise to the image?
What are the various hypotheses to explain the Cambrian Explosion ??
I couldn’t find last week’s answer in QA 186. If you said the code of the winning answer it’d be easier to find them
It'll be from 185 I think. There is usually a 2 episode lag, because we need enough lead time for editing.
Couldn't we observe "a thing" with the known good part of the telescope, then observe it with the segment that was hit and calculate out the defect for all future observations?
Fraser I can hear rain..
You make the point that the JWST sees wavelengths of light we cannot and that a computer creates a visible color image from these wavelengths . While true, I prefer to think about it as digitally blue-shifting the target back into the visible range before the expansion of the universe red-shifted it out of the visible range. This is assuming the filters used have wavelengths spaced at roughly the same intervals as visible red, green, and blue light.
In astrophotography you don't have to keep the wavelengths in the same order.
You can also create false color images to show certain features in the data.
Quite often HSO is used for RGB although hydrogen and sulphur are both in the red spectrum.
Star formation. This is my understanding. A cloud of gas contracts under gravitational attraction. At the center a proto sun forms Under the immense pressure, the fusion reaction starts in the core, and the sun heats up. That produces a large stellar wind that blows away the remaining gas cloud leaving planets
What I don't then understand is how massive stars form. At some point, lets assume one solar mass, you get that fusion ignition, the solar wind stars, blows the remaining gas away, stopping the star from getting larger. And yet there are stars [R136a1] at 265 times the solar mass.
Now this is mass is clearly very different from size. After all the sun will go red giant at some point.
So how do large mass stars form?
Off the back of your answer mentioning what would happen if there was an ice cube in orbit around the sun inside the asteriod belt, I am just wondering if we could make a comet by launching a block of ice into a similar solar orbit to earth's? How big do you think the ice block would need to be to see it as a comet from earth with the unaided eye & how long do you think it would last? I wonder if there would be any science that could be done seeing how a comet of known components acted compared to the comets we don't know the exact composition for? thanks for all you do
Here's a question I have about the conservation of information law.
Has that been proven? Like if you burn a book and throw it in a black hole, will the information in that book still be retrievable?
It seems like they are going through a lot of trouble trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing if you just accept that information can be lost.
Like the evaporating black hole theory from Stephen Hawking. Why not just except that the information is gone.
What happens when the last proton in the universe decays? Where is the information then?
Oh well, keep up the great work. Love your videos and have been watching them for quite some time now.
Well explained.
Mustafar for the win.
This morning as I was preparing coffee, I wondered how the colors in the photos taken by Webb or Hubble were generated. Now I know.
I want to stay positive
I'm gonna think of JW as a space rock collector
Ultra-Sensitive Impactor, precision measurement device
And proof of concept for future telescopes
Hah, it's just like Perseverance, collecting rocks.
@30:30 I wonder how many nit pickers are going to say “that’s not Jupiter”. Good vid. Btw, panspermia need not make the assumption that life started on a planet.
Kamino was my favorite
tatooine + related: if you were close enough to see it with your naked eye, would most nebulae not look like they do in pictures
While people love the pictures so people have been disappointed. But the real and most important part of JWST, is the science that will be done and the paper’s written so please people stop saying it’s not worth it just because the pictures don’t impress you in particular. And yes it cost over a billion but that’s not in just one year or one country really and truly.
YES! because literally everything is in Space 😁
Your channel is awesome, thanks!
Frasier, is the universe expanding chaotically, from a single point, or uniformly? Also, is it possible to see before the big bang, maybe with future optics? Love you as always
Are there any fotos of nebula or else, that are actually in visual light? I mean fotos colored in a way my eyes would see the nebula too?
I am just interested in how these would look like.
That was fascinating about where our water came from. Couldn't a scientist calculate how many comets would have to strike Earth in a certain amount of time to deliver the amount of water we have? Anyway, what about all the water on Europa and other moons? Where did that come from? They wouldn't have the gravity of Earth in order to pull comets in.
Yes; life came from space; it's got to have
I am a Jamaican interested in space i know no one in my circle who cares about it like i do..
Thats probably a stupid question but do you think that technology is something that has a limit and it can be advanced with a limit or it will be getting better and beter forever
Omg! You watch Becky yes yes yes!
33:17 Geonosis
that light constantly passes us by. you never see today's lights again.
and yes, we were closer to those stars. but they live long. And light moves with a finite speed through our ever stretching space-time. Imagine us (Earth and the star) like 2 kids on a relatively slowly stretching carpet. The one kid throws a candy at the other once a second. Some candy hit the other kid, some fly past him. Those candies are today's photons. Maybe they hit, maybe they miss, but the 2nd kid will never ever see them arrive again. Then the carpet stretches a bit, but the first kid is still throwing candies, still hitting and missing the other kid. And if the first kid stops throwing, there will be some candies incoming, somewhere between the 2 kids in the air. The 1st kid already stopped, but the 2nd one still feels and sees the incoming candies
of course, if the carpet stretches faster than those candies fly, then those candies never reach the 2nd kid. Based on current science, that's how the universe will be officially fuggd :- )
Are there stars and galaxies below earth? Like all the pictures seem like they're taken "above" the earth (north pole). It's hard to imagine there is anything below the south pole. Will JWST take photos pointing down?
Yes, there are stars and galaxies 'below' Earth, as the first explorers of the Southern hemisphere found: lots of new constellations.
Europe has an observatory (ESO) dedicated to studying the Southern hemisphere sky. Orientation in images taken by space telescopes is hard to tell.
If space x get the starship up and running will it be worth a trip to Hubble to give it a boost and fix the hardware that’s failing. James web sounds amazing but Hubble is still doing amazing work and when we have this why let it burn up?
In regards to your Tatooine answer, why don’t more astronomers delineate between a scientifically rendered photo vs a real world this is what your eyes would see photo. I feel like photos from Hubble and other telescopes aren’t often labeled clearly, and what would you say are the accurate labels 1. Real world eye vs 2. Scientifically generated ?? Frustrating that as a consumer I often don’t know if I’m looking at the former or the latter. What percent would you say are generated color photos, 90%? Does that mean the vast majority of the universe is in fact real world visually blah gray dust. That’s really boring if it’s true and most people IMO don’t realize it if so because they see Hubble photos and think that’s what it looks like. Please correct me if I’m wrong
Telescopes can take long exposures, which makes them look really cool. So I'd say 0.1% of pictures you see match what your eye would see. Maybe pictures of Jupiter, Saturn or Mars, or maybe an asteroid. Your eyeballs just can't collect photons long enough.
If you look at the original file you will often find the information in “more info”. Let’s take the iconic picture of “Eagle Nebula - Pillars of creation”. The information in the original file will tell you:
“ The picture is composed of 32 different images from four separate cameras in this instrument. The photograph was made with light emitted by different elements in the cloud and appears as a different colour in the composite image: green for hydrogen, red for singly-ionized sulphur and blue for double-ionized oxygen atoms. The missing part at the top right is because one of the four cameras has a magnified view of its portion, which allows astronomers to see finer detail. The images from this camera were scaled down in size to match those from the other three cameras. Further information at: Credit: NASA, Jeff Hester, and Paul Scowen (Arizona State University)”
@@rhoddryice5412 fair enough, but my point is from general public’s angle… they won’t read tiny footprint that long u have to seek out. I would suggest every enhanced non natural eye photo be flagged with a huge asterisk and the label “computer enhanced” directly on the image itself. The Vast majority of ppl are building an image of the cosmos that is not based in an experienced reality as our life on ear is, is my point. It’s kind of a lie
@@Ed-jg3ud And speaking about this European Southern Observatory (ESO) just uploaded 26 seconds video with observations from optical to radio of 30 Doradus. You should check it out and read the description for more information. =)
Here's a question Mr Cain. Granite I'm only a high school grad, but it was a private Christian high School. LOL if the light we see the furthest distance away is 13.8 billion years old shouldn't we see nothing in the opposite direction? It just doesn't seem to make sense to me that we can have a 360° by 360° view of the universe or essentially we see nothing but galaxies and every direction we look. Was the Big bang a central location or is the Big bang an outer location? I'm not being critical with this question believe me, it's just truly a question I can't seem to grasp. But then again I am but finite and the universe is infinite I'm sure you understand as well as I do that the finite cannot comprehend the infinite and I think they're in lies the question. Let me know what you think, I'm looking forward to hearing your response..
Sorry for my grammar and spelling oh and punctuation, I'm using speak to text while scanning the sky on the highway southbound...
th-cam.com/video/veQtF3_2tOE/w-d-xo.html
We can see to 13+ bn lightyears in every direction. That tells us one thing: the edge of the universe (if there is one) is more than 13 bn lightyears away from us in all directions.
The question 'where are we relative to the location of the Big Bang' has a counterintuitive answer. You can't compare it to an explosion, that has stuff flying away from the point of the explosion. Following the path of that stuff back to its origin allows you to pinpoint where the explosion took place.
The Big Bang was an explosion of space itself. We're inside that explosion/expansion that's still going on. We see stuff moving away from us, but observers in another galaxy see everything moving away from them.
Life is everywhere 🤔
2:36 Fraser Cain made his own stock footage! I am impressed and I have an idea! Fraser, please make stock footage! Extra monies and profit for more Universe Today news!
This was filmed when we made an episode about how to do astrophotography: th-cam.com/video/h2OmeL0qO_Y/w-d-xo.html
We do have more stock footage-ish video from other times we filmed on location in places, like the Kennedy Space Center, a cruise in Central America, and Hawaii that could be useful for it. It's an interesting idea that we have thrown around before. The edited videos are all released with a CC license anyways and have been re-edited and shown on television.
19:00 The problem with Dark matter is with Science we generally find something that breaks the rules causing us to discard our hypothesis and we have not done that with DM and DE. Instead we kept our hypothesis and are gluing on pieces with the idea that it will make sense eventually instead of going back to square one and that really bothers me. This could all be done away with if they go allllll the way back and review our understanding of what a particle is. Something akin to Pilot wave theory makes Dark matter and Dark energy vanish. You can recreate the exact structures right now with the same rotational velocities throwing extremely fine power onto a vibrating plate. That would be a simplified model of course but it demonstrates the principles rather well of matter being standing waves in an inviscid fluid.
What's the square one? As I said, there are facts like the expansion rate of the Universe, or the rotation speed of galaxies. We're in the hypothesis phase, trying to think of ideas that could explain them. Do you disagree with the facts?
@@frasercain Unfortunately in this case square one is likely Relatively itself which is difficult for me to say out loud because I personally believe that it, and not the standard model, is our most successful theory to date. At the very least some part of our understanding of gravity is likely wrong. I don't disagree with the facts at all, quite the opposite as the facts are suggesting our hypothesis are grossly mistaken and do not model 95% of our energy and mass in the universe. The parts of science I disagree with, because it kind of feels unscientific, is the belief that obviously our models must be correct and instead we just can't perceive the missing matter and energy. Using your analogy it would be akin to hearing the noise from your car and assuming it's a rock in the tire yet after checking for the rock and not seeing one you simply assume the rock is inside of the tire and can't be observed. After which you continue to formulate solutions on how to remove the rock. In my opinion it makes more sense to contemplate new hypothesis on the cause of the noise.
Thats all, nothing really against your communication of our current understanding. Sorry if it came off that way. Just more of a pet peeve I have with the trajectory of that field of science. It feels like chasing ghost instead of considering that perhaps it was just the house settling or the pipes knocking.
There's either some flaw in our understanding of gravity/spacetime or there is some massive particle opaque in the electromagnetic spectrum. According to Occam's razor, the winner is......
Do you think it would be possible for SpaceX to design a starlink satellite that could maybe once and awhile snatch a piece of space debris up before reentry? Thanks for all the amazing content Fraser!
If the dinosaurs were wiped out with an impact 65 million years ago could organic material from the Earth seeded any planets around our closest stars?
If you go on hiatus this year, please leave us with some compilations of old content to tide us over!
I am going on hiatus, in about 2 weeks. :-) But that's a good idea. We could do compilations based on topics. Interesting, thanks!
Corellia question had a good answer. Show an example or allow people to show an example. The best person is the best person. If they happen to be white male, that does not mean look for someone else who is not to be PC.... if being PC is what we spend time on, no work will be done. I used to work somewhere that a visible minority always had priority over some who was not even if the non-visible minority person were really good at the job, even if the person who did get hired had to be trained from the ground up (like trained to the minimum requirements others had to have just to apply). At the end they were still not very good and the product suffered. However, if the best person is a visible minority grab them quick. By the way, anyone can be a visible minority, even a white male, even in Vancouver.
I'm assuming James Webb will be doing its own deep field to search for extremely high redshift galaxies at some point. Do we know when that'll be started? I wanna see the ultra high redshift galaxies (maybe in redshift 20s potentially)
If JWST orbits L2 point, what is then the reason to place it there when the Earth does not provide continuous shade?
That's why it has the huge sunshield. That location puts the Earth, Sun and Moon all in the same location in the sky, and then it's blocked by the sunshield. Really clever idea.
Now we know how to build JWST. I think the same team should build another, and should be cheaper ans faster to place into another orbit to view what the first one can't. Is it possible to do a second JWST 2.0 for a polar Lagrange (or L3) so we can realize a 360° view?
Webb can look into all directions, just not at the same time. For objects directly "above it" we have to wait a month or two, for objects behind the Sun, six months at most. Building another clone of Webb would be a colossal waste of money. The next space telescope will have a very different set of instruments to let us see different kinds of objects, maybe X-ray, or maybe even gravitational.
@@milobem4458 I believe we agree on more than otherwise. I know it can't 'see' everywhere. JWST can never expose it's hiney (cool side) to the Sun, so nah, it can't see everywhere but damn near close.. I haven't looked into L3, I don't know or care enough. If u do, learn me somein'. I think we would be best served with another JWST 3.0 with a Martian L point should be next. Better cooling further away. Make it autonomously serviceable before sending. We can't yet achieve and maintain cryo (cool enough) at L2 conditions since its not serviceable at this time. They are trying to make it serviceable running test here for an autonomous trip to JWST. That's great, yes, but use it on another launch to a cooler place, lower gravity at one of the Mars L point satellite orbits. What ya think?
When and how did we work out that space is a vacuum?
I have a question, with all these cameras in space, how come there isn't a real photo of earth?
There are plenty of real images of Earth. Check out the DSCOVR images. epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Female lesbian here-Happy Pride! Thank you for the diversity question. I also think the best thing to do is simply respect all kinds of humans in stem
what's with the on-screen star wars references?
They are the codewords for each question. When you include it in your comment, then it gets added to the tally and the question with the most votes gets a shout-out in the next edited episode after we've tallied them up.
How big was the surface that emitted the light of the CMB we see now, at the time those photons were emitted?
Evidence indicates today with expansion the current distance from where the light left is 46.51 billion light years and it has a redshift of 1,091 indicating an expansion 1,092x since the light left. This indicates it was around 43 million light years away at the time of emission
❓When scientists talk about the search for life in the universe, how exactly do they define "life"? Is there any chemistry other than RNA/DNA-based that has been hypothesized as a potentially feasible candidate for other life forms❓
Yes, definitely, but it’s easier to search for life as understand it first.
Tatooine - This is the fundamental thing those weirdo flat people can't grasp. "It's a composite image" - 'yes, that's the idea...like your cell phone you're using to try 'prove' me wrong'...lol
Great explanation Fraser.
Edit: Hoth - ouch, too soon man! *averts eyes*
Isn't dark matter just nano-dust that fills the void?
Dagobah
Mustafar
Hey! I'm grateful i found this place where questions are answered in such a detailed way. I was always wondering, not really related to space, but physics, if the speed of light has a hard limit but we don't have a hard limit on the slowest speed in the universe, can we say that the speed of light is actually the slowest speed (zero) and every other speed is just moving faster relative to it? Thanks! Great show
I was under the impression that dark matter and dark energy were the hypotheses, not the facts. Is that incorrect?
Nope, they’re a catch all term for the collection of observations that have been made.
My 3d mind says JW telescope should be able to see _any_ part of the sky at some time of the year. Or is it not able to see at as low as 90 degrees to the Sun? From the construction it looks like it should be able to see at less than 90 degrees but there may be some design reason why it would not reach as low as that. JW can obviously see in any direction directly away from the Sun at some time of year. If it can only go as low as 90 degrees to the Sun that would leave a "tube" of area the width of it's orbit around the Sun, nadir to Earth's orbit. Anything less than 90 degrees would reduce that tube to a cone. At 45 degrees that cone would basically include anything inside the orbit of JW around the Sun... where it really doesn't want to see anyway. I am guessing that moving the shade so it is not 90 degrees to the Sun would import some off centre force that would need correction but is JW not able to point parallel to the shade?
Every part of the sky is visible over a 6-month period. It can pitch to -5º and +40º, IIRC.
Im wondering if the universe is drifting away, how is it that Andromeda will one day smash into the milky way ?
Isn’t space, the universe, whatever, isn’t that where everything comes from??
Why is NASA officially getting into the UAP business ? I have my own thoughts but like to hear others..
Was the inflation moving faster than light in the beginning? @frasercain
Mandalore
If the speed of light is not in fact constant but instead it has changed slightly over time, would this not look exactly the same as an accelerating expansion?
Yes a slowing of the speed of light could simulate an increasing expansion but that'd leave the question of "why is it changing?"
@@rasverixxyleighraq1509 Thanks. I guess the implication would be that the speed of light at a particular time is in some way related to the current age (or volume) of the Universe
As far as I’m aware, we don’t know enough about dark matter to know that dark matter is one thing and not in fact be multiple things. So dark matter could be WIMPs AND primordial black holes AND an unknown subatomic particle.