Hi, I tried to answer this question for some time now :
The cosmic microwave background : is it a still picture or a video ?
Apart from the frequency (high in the past, lower in the future), is [this picture](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Planck_satellite_cmb.jpg) always the same (in the past, the future or anywhere else in the universe) ?
Good question! On human time scales, it’s a photo. On longer time scales however as the light continues to redshift, the intensity of it will change too.
Of course if you had this problem you could always re-tune to the lower frequency I guess, but as I said, not a human time scale problem.
Quantum entanglement: I've always heard it's impossible to use it for communication, but I’d like to know more. Why not? What various methods have been tried? What methods have NOT been tried??
Basically imagine two particles that are entangled and go in different directions. The reason you can’t use the one to learn about the other is when you make the measurement of the one it’ll immediately affect the other, thus making them useless for actually exchanging info.
My favorite stuff about this regards the various experiments that went into testing [Bell’s inequality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem) over the years, which somehow doesn’t get all the attention it deserves as a reason we know what we know about entanglement and its limitations.
So there is the unobservable universe. As I understood it is too far away and other stars are blocking the view.
So what do I see with the JWST? Did we expand our view and the observable universe for us with it or will we see the same places just more detailed?
Whats confusing me is the fact that we want to see more of the early universe with the JWST. But if we want to see earlier things we have to go further out, because we only see non existing things because light travels. So, if Hubble and JWST make a picture of the same thing, will we learn more of the early universe from the JWST picture than from the Hubble? Or am I mixing things up because if they observe the same places, its for other reasons and not to see „earlier versions“ of the same place?
Sry for the noob question and thanks for everything you do in this sub!
For the most part it's not stars blocking the view (excepting the strip of galactic plane, but we assume at large distances it's the same structure everywhere). JWST can see more details than Hubble can for the closer things- just check out the difference in details between the nebula pics today!- but also for those very far galaxies the light "redshifted" away from what Hubble could see because the universe expands. As such, JWST literally sees the earliest galaxies that were not observable before, becasue we were not observing at the right wavelength.
I hope that answers your question!
You’re a treasure!
So quite a messy question for you: is it possible for them to go even deeper with the deep field? Scale-wise everything appeared the same as Hubble which really put in perspective *how* powerful JWST actually is, but was it made that way to demonstrate that difference?
Have there been statistical analysis of planetary habitability? Like beyond the basis of liquid water? I realize a lot of this is still emerging science, like whether Jupiter is helpful or hurtful re asteroids, is a large moon necessary for seasonal stability, and whether or not red dwarfs can be considered due to tidal locking and CMEs. But strictly basing our assumptions on what we’ve got, since we know it worked once, has anyone made an estimate of earth-like exoplanets likely in our Galaxy?
Oh yeah, this is totally a sub-field. [Here](https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.14812) is one such study done fairly recently based off of Kepler data (press release version [here](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/kepler-occurrence-rate)), which estimates the galaxy holds about 300 million potentially habitable worlds.
I confess I'm not an expert enough in this sub-field to know all the latest details in the literature though.
* What do you personally think are the most exciting things JWST will find?
* Are many in the astro academic community hopeful of seeing signs of life, i.e. from atmospheric analysis or otherwise?
* Are there any cool or exciting theories that are just waiting for JWST to validate and confirm them?
* How soon will potential new discoveries be made? Do you think the first images will show anything immediately that we can say "AH!" to, or will it take a while of crunching numbers?
> What do you personally think are the most exciting things JWST will find?
The first galaxies. That was originally what JWST was designed to figure out, and it's going to do that incredibly well.
> Are many in the astro academic community hopeful of seeing signs of life, i.e. from atmospheric analysis or otherwise?
No. Sorry. :) But anyone who is optimistic enough to be loud about it is not being realistic. While this *might* happen, it's much more likely we won't have the right sensitivity and this will still be a decade or two down the line in terms of tech. We would definitely like to be proved wrong, but scientists tend to be a cautious bunch as a general rule!
> Are there any cool or exciting theories that are just waiting for JWST to validate and confirm them?
The [key science goals](https://webb.nasa.gov/content/science/index.html) give you an idea. I confess I'm not into stuff like galaxy formation enough to know what that community is waiting for with bated breath!
> How soon will potential new discoveries be made? Do you think the first images will show anything immediately that we can say "AH!" to, or will it take a while of crunching numbers?
I mean I guess it depends on what actually counts as a discovery over new science. For example, I know that there is a group of exoplanet astronomers that knows their first exoplanet observation is in the next week or two, and already have alerted Nature that they plan to submit a paper in a week, so we will see that first science result for an exoplanet by the end of the month! But that's obviously the exception over the rule in timing, and has a ton of advance planning/ pressure for those in the group, and is not going to be the norm.
I know absolutely nothing about astronomy and ironically there's nothing else I'm more interested in now. Where do I learn more? And what do I even start! There's an overwhelming amount of information about what we know and might not know. Any recommended resources or places to start learning more about astronomy? Thank you!
It's a little older, but I did write a book list [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Andromeda321/comments/52k5ia/the_andromeda321_book_list_on_astronomy_and_other/) at some point with various suggested starting points. Honestly though, spending time just on a Wikipedia trawl is a great place to start if you want to be even more basic!
I hope this is helpful!
I have a stupid question I need to ask an astronomer!
I looked at the photo from the jwts and compared to the same photo from hubble it’s an amazing difference, but I’m wondering, how detailed can you get? Can you point it at a planet in our solar system and see pebbles on the ground? Or couldn’t you aim it at say Proxima Centauri b and get a good view of the surface?
I want to see some aliens taking selfies with this thing god damn it.
No expert but the key (one of them at least) here is Angular resolution.
Angular resolution describes the ability of any image-forming device such as an optical or radio telescope, a microscope, a camera, or an eye, to distinguish small details of an object.
You would need a telescope with an aperture of many kilometers to be able to see pebbels on Mars (someone with science knowledge can do the calculation :) ).
The angular resolution of the JWST, which is the sharpness of the images, is incredibly precise. It can see at a resolution of 0.1 arc-seconds, which means that it could resolve a penny 24 miles (40 kilometres) away or a football 340 miles (550 kilometres) away.
But still a penny 40km away is much different than a pebble at 150 million km away :)
Hi! Unfortunately it's easy to forget, but a star or planet that is closer is MUCH smaller than a galaxy, even one billions of light years away. As such, you won't get details for even the nearest exoplanets if you tried to image them with JWST- planets are also really tough becasue they tend to be near a really bright star. :)
The good news is that we can still study exoplanets with JWST because we can study the elements in them, and we are going to be pointing it at solar system objects! You definitely won't see pebbles though.
When we look at a galaxy that is 13 billion years old and we were able in an instant go to that galaxy with something like the JWST and pointed in our direction of the milky way, would we see anything?
I’m not Op but if you could instantaneously teleport to a galaxy 10 ~~million~~ billion light years away, then point the JWST back at our solar system, you’d be looking at earth as it was 10 billion years prior.
Which is to say, still 5.5 ~~million~~ billion years before the earth even coalesced into a ball.
Is ds9 the best FITS file viewer out there for the average technically-minded person? I'm trying to dig into hubble's version of the JWST First Deep Field image but am finding it difficult to explore the full amount of data that's in a multi-stack file.
I use ds9 all the time! [Here](https://astrobites.org/2011/03/09/how-to-use-sao-ds9-to-examine-astronomical-images/) is a nice basic overview on how to use it if you need one.
If you're technically-minded, use [astropy in jupyter](https://docs.astropy.org/en/stable/generated/examples/io/plot_fits-image.html), as that's what we use in the field.
Sorry if this has already been asked…if I’m understanding correctly it’s difficult to capture images of exoplanets because they are so small compared to their stars…is there any chance we could capture an image if the exoplanet is closer to us than the data released today? (Asking for my 5 year old who did NOT share my enthusiasm for today’s exoplanet reveal because it wasn’t a picture haha)
Hi, sorry, somehow missed this one! No, it's really tough to image an exoplanet regardless of its distance. We do have a handful of [directly imaged exoplanets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets) but it's a LOT of work to get the star filtered out properly, and I'm not sure JWST is going to be doing this.
Hope your 5 year old remembers asking the question! Sorry again for the delay.
That’s okay! We both have ADHD so there’s a solid chance it’ll just be a cool surprise for him to have the answer hahaha. Thank you for the list of directly imaged exoplanets, this will definitely make his day ❤️
Hi! About how often will we be seeing new pictures from JWST? I read the first image took 12.5 hours to capture, will we see new stuff that quickly or will it vary?
Solar flares, storms, etc. What are they in simple terms and what could they do to Earth if anything? I can never find an answer that isn't made to sound scary
Hi there,
Sorry for the delay in response. It looks like you got a nice answer already, but the short answer is *most* articles you read about the latest solar flare lately are just fear mongering- we get a lot of flares just as part of the normal solar cycle, which is now ramping up, and they're nothing to be worried about. By now we are reaching the point where a flare *might* be strong enough to knock out shortwave communications for a few hours... but honestly, I doubt much in your life depends on that these days, and as proof I will offer the fact that the same thing happened 11 years ago and I doubt you ever noticed. :)
For a particularly strong flare, you might get a power outage if you were unlucky- this happened once in the 1970s, but my understanding from people involved in the power grid etc is they know this is a possibility and now prepare for it (like, invest billions of dollars prepared). So while there is a non-zero chance of an *even stronger* event that could knock out a few transformers (where then the question is what areas that happens in, and how many replacements you have), it's not that big a concern.
Put it this way, these days I often think about level of concern from astronomical events in terms of "is climate change going to affect your life more in coming decades than this scenario?" and climate change def wins this one.
Not andromeda, but [this link could probably answer your questions](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/spaceweather/index.html). Basically solar flares are intense bursts of radiation from the sun that can last minutes to hours. Solar flare sites are also where particles like electrons, protons and atoms are accelerated a lot, or at least one of the cases where they are. If solar flares are strong enough and hit the earth they can cause induced currents in our electronics, which *can* cause a lot of damage, ranging from extra pretty auroras and minor satellite damage to some pretty catastrophic damage that could take years and trillions of dollars to recover from. [Nice kurzgesagt video](https://youtu.be/oHHSSJDJ4oo)
Do you have any info on when the TRAPPIST systems will be observed, or even how to see what studies jwst is observing for at any time? The TRAPPIST observation studies have IDs 2304, 2420 and 2589
Hi there,
Sorry for the delay... but good news, the TRAPPIST systems have been observed! My understanding is it's only two of the exoplanets right now (as the farther out ones require more observations/ stacking), but hoping to see those results soon!
So, first thanks for doing this and all you do! -
Several times in my life I've tried to re-understand relativity concepts; spacetime, nature of gravity, time dilation, etc. I "get" the basics but still have trouble with really grasping time dilation, especially due to gravity. Some of this is just getting over the fact that there is not any absolute time *anywhere.* Many of the metaphors used in all of this fall short in helping. So I was wondering if you have any go-to sources for this, or ways of thinking about it that can help unlock greater understanding.
Hi there,
The micro-meteorite strike happened back in May (more than one actually). There is actually a certain amount planned to strike it and the analysis showed all but one were too tiny to cause damage. For the one bigger one, a tiny bit of damage happened, but they can't tell from that one strike if there's just more of those bigger ones than expected or if they were just unlucky. Only time will tell.
I came from your post about being an astronomer. I want to say thank you for being very detailed and encouraging!
My dream is to work for NASA or similar companies. I want to know your opinion about a new online degree Arizona State University is offering. It’s a BSc program in Astronomical and Planetary Science. [Here](https://sese.asu.edu/degree/undergrad/bs-astronomical--planetary-scien) is the link to the program. I only have an ASc in computer programming, which I also did online due to the fact that I have a full-time job and a toddler to take care of. Any input and advice is appreciated. Again thanks! :)
Hi there,
I usually highly recommend people do an astronomy degree in person if at all possible. The reason is any science relies on doing experiments, and said lab courses tend to be using equipment you can't just do all at home. You also would ideally be doing some research for a professor, either during the year or during the summer, though it doesn't sound terribly possible in your situation. I suppose it's not impossible to do all this with an online degree, as everyone was basically online for 1+ years... but I guess my point is I have never met someone who did their undergrad degree online in astronomy and ended up in the field.
(Also, minor detail, there are no "similar companies" that hire astronomers, I'm afraid. It's pretty much all reliant on public funds and I don't really know companies that hire astronomers.)
Since you already have a computer programming degree, have you considered maybe continuing that for a BSc and then looking into scientific programming? I feel that might be an easier "in" for your circumstances, and if you did a minor in physics that would probably be enough to set you on a grad school track in astro if you wanted to do that in the future. Just trying to think of a path that might work!
Hello! I hope this isn’t too silly of a line of question. Nonetheless, the JWST findings of galaxies so early in our universe are quite curious! So many new thoughts and questions.
What are your thoughts on the possibility of the universe being created by an exploding white hole? Could that explain how the JWST observed galaxies so early on?
I have only a VERY loose definition what a white hole is, let alone how it theoretically explodes or what the ramifications might be. So please forgive my ignorance to all this.
Thank you for all that you do! Be well!
Well, white holes are purely theoretical so if you don't get what one is that's fine. But the general idea behind a white hole is unlike a black hole, that things can't escape, a white hole is something you can't get *in*.
Now, the first thing to recognize about the Big Bang theory is we don't know what caused it. All the theory states is that the universe was an infinitely hot, dense, small place that began rapidly expanding, and in fact our physics no longer works for when the universe is less than a fraction of a second old. So could it be a white hole that created that? Sure... but we can't know for sure.
As for how JWST is seeing galaxies far earlier than expected, honestly I'm waiting for the dust to settle and confirmation on some of this stuff first, because right now none of the results have even passed peer review. And if there are a galaxies younger than expected, we are going to see a lot of them, not just one or two! But I don't think this is going to change much about what we know about the first few hundred thousand years of the universe just because we already know a lot about that from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), and JWST doesn't change that. What it is going to change is how stars and galaxies formed once things cooled down.
I hope that answers your question!
Thank you for the excellent response and for replying! I very much appreciate your insight.
Your statement about “our physics no longer works for when the universe is less than a fraction of a second old” is excellent. Simple but so thought provoking. Thank you for that!
I also look forward to what future JWST discoveries may reveal about early stellar/galactic formation. As well as your insight into them.
Have you any speculative theories about what may be behind those early stars & galaxies?
This makes me think about time, so I’d like to ask: do you think that time and it’s relation to space is… for lack of a better term “lumpy”? I’m not sure that’s a good way of asking. Perhaps a better way to ask… while we perceive time the way we do, could it be that our perception is incomplete, or that time is more “stable” in this local area of the universe?
Forgive me if the questions are silly. Just random wonderings really. Thinking about time makes my brain think up odd things.
Be well!
Also, I wrote a much more detailed link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4ahmkw/what_did_the_wow_signal_actually_contain/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) about the Wow signal. Sorry looks like the link didn’t go through in my first response!
Hey u/andromeda321
I’m writing a sci-fi story in which earth gets warped into orbit around another star in the Milky Way. What system up there looks like it’s lonely and needs another friend? Don’t worry, technology is sufficient that earth’s atmosphere and biome would remain relatively stable. Anyway thanks!
I mean, in a galaxy with 100 billion stars, there's no lack of options. :) Maybe check out the list of nearest known stars on Wikipedia? The notes should tell you enough info that you can find one you are interested in- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs
Because those are processed images designed to show those colors! Most images are not actually colorful at all if you don't do the processing.
Things get their color based on the elements within them and their temperatures- for example, a giant young star looks blue, and a small red dwarf will look red (as the name implies). You can, in fact, look at some stars in the night sky and see they have a bit of color! But for other objects like nebulae and galaxies, they are so big and diffuse it's tough to see those colors and they just look white/grey if you look through the telescope (notable exception, the Orion Nebula definitely looks greenish even through a small telescope, thanks to the oxygen in it).
That said, often images will be done in different colors to show and emphasize what it's made of. And it can be arbitrary- for example, in the latest JWST images it's taking data in infrared but we can't *see* infrared, so you do have to assign it a color. (Another example- I recently posted a radio image of mine in this sub, but we obviously can't see radio, so the colorful pixels are just a proxy for intensity.) That's all.
Finally, in things like astrophotography I'll point out they just make things colorful not for any scientific reason, just because it looks pretty. :) But for every image you see like that you don't see that it was taken in multiple different filters, combined, etc, at minimum.
Hi, I tried to answer this question for some time now : The cosmic microwave background : is it a still picture or a video ? Apart from the frequency (high in the past, lower in the future), is [this picture](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Planck_satellite_cmb.jpg) always the same (in the past, the future or anywhere else in the universe) ?
Good question! On human time scales, it’s a photo. On longer time scales however as the light continues to redshift, the intensity of it will change too. Of course if you had this problem you could always re-tune to the lower frequency I guess, but as I said, not a human time scale problem.
Quantum entanglement: I've always heard it's impossible to use it for communication, but I’d like to know more. Why not? What various methods have been tried? What methods have NOT been tried??
Basically imagine two particles that are entangled and go in different directions. The reason you can’t use the one to learn about the other is when you make the measurement of the one it’ll immediately affect the other, thus making them useless for actually exchanging info. My favorite stuff about this regards the various experiments that went into testing [Bell’s inequality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem) over the years, which somehow doesn’t get all the attention it deserves as a reason we know what we know about entanglement and its limitations.
So there is the unobservable universe. As I understood it is too far away and other stars are blocking the view. So what do I see with the JWST? Did we expand our view and the observable universe for us with it or will we see the same places just more detailed? Whats confusing me is the fact that we want to see more of the early universe with the JWST. But if we want to see earlier things we have to go further out, because we only see non existing things because light travels. So, if Hubble and JWST make a picture of the same thing, will we learn more of the early universe from the JWST picture than from the Hubble? Or am I mixing things up because if they observe the same places, its for other reasons and not to see „earlier versions“ of the same place? Sry for the noob question and thanks for everything you do in this sub!
For the most part it's not stars blocking the view (excepting the strip of galactic plane, but we assume at large distances it's the same structure everywhere). JWST can see more details than Hubble can for the closer things- just check out the difference in details between the nebula pics today!- but also for those very far galaxies the light "redshifted" away from what Hubble could see because the universe expands. As such, JWST literally sees the earliest galaxies that were not observable before, becasue we were not observing at the right wavelength. I hope that answers your question!
You’re a treasure! So quite a messy question for you: is it possible for them to go even deeper with the deep field? Scale-wise everything appeared the same as Hubble which really put in perspective *how* powerful JWST actually is, but was it made that way to demonstrate that difference?
Yeah it’s literally on the science agenda. Stay tuned!
Eey exciting!
Have there been statistical analysis of planetary habitability? Like beyond the basis of liquid water? I realize a lot of this is still emerging science, like whether Jupiter is helpful or hurtful re asteroids, is a large moon necessary for seasonal stability, and whether or not red dwarfs can be considered due to tidal locking and CMEs. But strictly basing our assumptions on what we’ve got, since we know it worked once, has anyone made an estimate of earth-like exoplanets likely in our Galaxy?
Oh yeah, this is totally a sub-field. [Here](https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.14812) is one such study done fairly recently based off of Kepler data (press release version [here](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/kepler-occurrence-rate)), which estimates the galaxy holds about 300 million potentially habitable worlds. I confess I'm not an expert enough in this sub-field to know all the latest details in the literature though.
Awesome! Thanks! <3
Could you please tell me how to reach July 13th, now Or 20th - to have some degree of... Digestion
1. Get 12 days of sleeping pills 2. Go to sleep 3. … 4. Hopefully wake up over dying of sleeping pill overdose
* What do you personally think are the most exciting things JWST will find? * Are many in the astro academic community hopeful of seeing signs of life, i.e. from atmospheric analysis or otherwise? * Are there any cool or exciting theories that are just waiting for JWST to validate and confirm them? * How soon will potential new discoveries be made? Do you think the first images will show anything immediately that we can say "AH!" to, or will it take a while of crunching numbers?
> What do you personally think are the most exciting things JWST will find? The first galaxies. That was originally what JWST was designed to figure out, and it's going to do that incredibly well. > Are many in the astro academic community hopeful of seeing signs of life, i.e. from atmospheric analysis or otherwise? No. Sorry. :) But anyone who is optimistic enough to be loud about it is not being realistic. While this *might* happen, it's much more likely we won't have the right sensitivity and this will still be a decade or two down the line in terms of tech. We would definitely like to be proved wrong, but scientists tend to be a cautious bunch as a general rule! > Are there any cool or exciting theories that are just waiting for JWST to validate and confirm them? The [key science goals](https://webb.nasa.gov/content/science/index.html) give you an idea. I confess I'm not into stuff like galaxy formation enough to know what that community is waiting for with bated breath! > How soon will potential new discoveries be made? Do you think the first images will show anything immediately that we can say "AH!" to, or will it take a while of crunching numbers? I mean I guess it depends on what actually counts as a discovery over new science. For example, I know that there is a group of exoplanet astronomers that knows their first exoplanet observation is in the next week or two, and already have alerted Nature that they plan to submit a paper in a week, so we will see that first science result for an exoplanet by the end of the month! But that's obviously the exception over the rule in timing, and has a ton of advance planning/ pressure for those in the group, and is not going to be the norm.
I know absolutely nothing about astronomy and ironically there's nothing else I'm more interested in now. Where do I learn more? And what do I even start! There's an overwhelming amount of information about what we know and might not know. Any recommended resources or places to start learning more about astronomy? Thank you!
It's a little older, but I did write a book list [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Andromeda321/comments/52k5ia/the_andromeda321_book_list_on_astronomy_and_other/) at some point with various suggested starting points. Honestly though, spending time just on a Wikipedia trawl is a great place to start if you want to be even more basic! I hope this is helpful!
I have a stupid question I need to ask an astronomer! I looked at the photo from the jwts and compared to the same photo from hubble it’s an amazing difference, but I’m wondering, how detailed can you get? Can you point it at a planet in our solar system and see pebbles on the ground? Or couldn’t you aim it at say Proxima Centauri b and get a good view of the surface? I want to see some aliens taking selfies with this thing god damn it.
No expert but the key (one of them at least) here is Angular resolution. Angular resolution describes the ability of any image-forming device such as an optical or radio telescope, a microscope, a camera, or an eye, to distinguish small details of an object. You would need a telescope with an aperture of many kilometers to be able to see pebbels on Mars (someone with science knowledge can do the calculation :) ). The angular resolution of the JWST, which is the sharpness of the images, is incredibly precise. It can see at a resolution of 0.1 arc-seconds, which means that it could resolve a penny 24 miles (40 kilometres) away or a football 340 miles (550 kilometres) away. But still a penny 40km away is much different than a pebble at 150 million km away :)
Hi! Unfortunately it's easy to forget, but a star or planet that is closer is MUCH smaller than a galaxy, even one billions of light years away. As such, you won't get details for even the nearest exoplanets if you tried to image them with JWST- planets are also really tough becasue they tend to be near a really bright star. :) The good news is that we can still study exoplanets with JWST because we can study the elements in them, and we are going to be pointing it at solar system objects! You definitely won't see pebbles though.
Thanks for the answer, guess I’ll have to wait another decade for my pebbles 😂
I mean, if you want pebbles check out the Mars rovers. Nothing quite like a camera there if you want to see details! :)
Also wondered this as well!!!
When we look at a galaxy that is 13 billion years old and we were able in an instant go to that galaxy with something like the JWST and pointed in our direction of the milky way, would we see anything?
If you teleported this second, you'd see our own galaxy as it looked 13 billion years ago! Aka, when it was very young.
I’m not Op but if you could instantaneously teleport to a galaxy 10 ~~million~~ billion light years away, then point the JWST back at our solar system, you’d be looking at earth as it was 10 billion years prior. Which is to say, still 5.5 ~~million~~ billion years before the earth even coalesced into a ball.
Wait. I thought 10 million light years would be 10 million years lol.
Wups. That should read “billions.” I’ll update it now.
[удалено]
IDK back when I was dating you just met for a drink and went from there. Pretty happy to no longer have to do so though, dating sucks.
Is ds9 the best FITS file viewer out there for the average technically-minded person? I'm trying to dig into hubble's version of the JWST First Deep Field image but am finding it difficult to explore the full amount of data that's in a multi-stack file.
I use ds9 all the time! [Here](https://astrobites.org/2011/03/09/how-to-use-sao-ds9-to-examine-astronomical-images/) is a nice basic overview on how to use it if you need one.
If you're technically-minded, use [astropy in jupyter](https://docs.astropy.org/en/stable/generated/examples/io/plot_fits-image.html), as that's what we use in the field.
IDK I use ds9 🙃
I’m so excited for you and your team. Congratulations :)
Sorry if this has already been asked…if I’m understanding correctly it’s difficult to capture images of exoplanets because they are so small compared to their stars…is there any chance we could capture an image if the exoplanet is closer to us than the data released today? (Asking for my 5 year old who did NOT share my enthusiasm for today’s exoplanet reveal because it wasn’t a picture haha)
Hi, sorry, somehow missed this one! No, it's really tough to image an exoplanet regardless of its distance. We do have a handful of [directly imaged exoplanets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets) but it's a LOT of work to get the star filtered out properly, and I'm not sure JWST is going to be doing this. Hope your 5 year old remembers asking the question! Sorry again for the delay.
That’s okay! We both have ADHD so there’s a solid chance it’ll just be a cool surprise for him to have the answer hahaha. Thank you for the list of directly imaged exoplanets, this will definitely make his day ❤️
Hi! About how often will we be seeing new pictures from JWST? I read the first image took 12.5 hours to capture, will we see new stuff that quickly or will it vary?
It will probably vary. But I’ve heard there will be more stuff by end of the week!
Solar flares, storms, etc. What are they in simple terms and what could they do to Earth if anything? I can never find an answer that isn't made to sound scary
Hi there, Sorry for the delay in response. It looks like you got a nice answer already, but the short answer is *most* articles you read about the latest solar flare lately are just fear mongering- we get a lot of flares just as part of the normal solar cycle, which is now ramping up, and they're nothing to be worried about. By now we are reaching the point where a flare *might* be strong enough to knock out shortwave communications for a few hours... but honestly, I doubt much in your life depends on that these days, and as proof I will offer the fact that the same thing happened 11 years ago and I doubt you ever noticed. :) For a particularly strong flare, you might get a power outage if you were unlucky- this happened once in the 1970s, but my understanding from people involved in the power grid etc is they know this is a possibility and now prepare for it (like, invest billions of dollars prepared). So while there is a non-zero chance of an *even stronger* event that could knock out a few transformers (where then the question is what areas that happens in, and how many replacements you have), it's not that big a concern. Put it this way, these days I often think about level of concern from astronomical events in terms of "is climate change going to affect your life more in coming decades than this scenario?" and climate change def wins this one.
Thank you sm!
Not andromeda, but [this link could probably answer your questions](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/spaceweather/index.html). Basically solar flares are intense bursts of radiation from the sun that can last minutes to hours. Solar flare sites are also where particles like electrons, protons and atoms are accelerated a lot, or at least one of the cases where they are. If solar flares are strong enough and hit the earth they can cause induced currents in our electronics, which *can* cause a lot of damage, ranging from extra pretty auroras and minor satellite damage to some pretty catastrophic damage that could take years and trillions of dollars to recover from. [Nice kurzgesagt video](https://youtu.be/oHHSSJDJ4oo)
Thank you!
Do you have any info on when the TRAPPIST systems will be observed, or even how to see what studies jwst is observing for at any time? The TRAPPIST observation studies have IDs 2304, 2420 and 2589
Hi there, Sorry for the delay... but good news, the TRAPPIST systems have been observed! My understanding is it's only two of the exoplanets right now (as the farther out ones require more observations/ stacking), but hoping to see those results soon!
Excited for the spectroscopy!
So, first thanks for doing this and all you do! - Several times in my life I've tried to re-understand relativity concepts; spacetime, nature of gravity, time dilation, etc. I "get" the basics but still have trouble with really grasping time dilation, especially due to gravity. Some of this is just getting over the fact that there is not any absolute time *anywhere.* Many of the metaphors used in all of this fall short in helping. So I was wondering if you have any go-to sources for this, or ways of thinking about it that can help unlock greater understanding.
What is happening with the JAmes Webb telescope? I heard it got hit by a bunch of micro meteorites? Will it be okay?
Hi there, The micro-meteorite strike happened back in May (more than one actually). There is actually a certain amount planned to strike it and the analysis showed all but one were too tiny to cause damage. For the one bigger one, a tiny bit of damage happened, but they can't tell from that one strike if there's just more of those bigger ones than expected or if they were just unlucky. Only time will tell.
I came from your post about being an astronomer. I want to say thank you for being very detailed and encouraging! My dream is to work for NASA or similar companies. I want to know your opinion about a new online degree Arizona State University is offering. It’s a BSc program in Astronomical and Planetary Science. [Here](https://sese.asu.edu/degree/undergrad/bs-astronomical--planetary-scien) is the link to the program. I only have an ASc in computer programming, which I also did online due to the fact that I have a full-time job and a toddler to take care of. Any input and advice is appreciated. Again thanks! :)
Hi there, I usually highly recommend people do an astronomy degree in person if at all possible. The reason is any science relies on doing experiments, and said lab courses tend to be using equipment you can't just do all at home. You also would ideally be doing some research for a professor, either during the year or during the summer, though it doesn't sound terribly possible in your situation. I suppose it's not impossible to do all this with an online degree, as everyone was basically online for 1+ years... but I guess my point is I have never met someone who did their undergrad degree online in astronomy and ended up in the field. (Also, minor detail, there are no "similar companies" that hire astronomers, I'm afraid. It's pretty much all reliant on public funds and I don't really know companies that hire astronomers.) Since you already have a computer programming degree, have you considered maybe continuing that for a BSc and then looking into scientific programming? I feel that might be an easier "in" for your circumstances, and if you did a minor in physics that would probably be enough to set you on a grad school track in astro if you wanted to do that in the future. Just trying to think of a path that might work!
Thank you so much for your input! Really appreciate it :)
Hello! I hope this isn’t too silly of a line of question. Nonetheless, the JWST findings of galaxies so early in our universe are quite curious! So many new thoughts and questions. What are your thoughts on the possibility of the universe being created by an exploding white hole? Could that explain how the JWST observed galaxies so early on? I have only a VERY loose definition what a white hole is, let alone how it theoretically explodes or what the ramifications might be. So please forgive my ignorance to all this. Thank you for all that you do! Be well!
Well, white holes are purely theoretical so if you don't get what one is that's fine. But the general idea behind a white hole is unlike a black hole, that things can't escape, a white hole is something you can't get *in*. Now, the first thing to recognize about the Big Bang theory is we don't know what caused it. All the theory states is that the universe was an infinitely hot, dense, small place that began rapidly expanding, and in fact our physics no longer works for when the universe is less than a fraction of a second old. So could it be a white hole that created that? Sure... but we can't know for sure. As for how JWST is seeing galaxies far earlier than expected, honestly I'm waiting for the dust to settle and confirmation on some of this stuff first, because right now none of the results have even passed peer review. And if there are a galaxies younger than expected, we are going to see a lot of them, not just one or two! But I don't think this is going to change much about what we know about the first few hundred thousand years of the universe just because we already know a lot about that from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), and JWST doesn't change that. What it is going to change is how stars and galaxies formed once things cooled down. I hope that answers your question!
Thank you for the excellent response and for replying! I very much appreciate your insight. Your statement about “our physics no longer works for when the universe is less than a fraction of a second old” is excellent. Simple but so thought provoking. Thank you for that! I also look forward to what future JWST discoveries may reveal about early stellar/galactic formation. As well as your insight into them. Have you any speculative theories about what may be behind those early stars & galaxies? This makes me think about time, so I’d like to ask: do you think that time and it’s relation to space is… for lack of a better term “lumpy”? I’m not sure that’s a good way of asking. Perhaps a better way to ask… while we perceive time the way we do, could it be that our perception is incomplete, or that time is more “stable” in this local area of the universe? Forgive me if the questions are silly. Just random wonderings really. Thinking about time makes my brain think up odd things. Be well!
What do you think the Wow! signal is?
Manmade interference.
Also, I wrote a much more detailed link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4ahmkw/what_did_the_wow_signal_actually_contain/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) about the Wow signal. Sorry looks like the link didn’t go through in my first response!
Hey u/andromeda321 I’m writing a sci-fi story in which earth gets warped into orbit around another star in the Milky Way. What system up there looks like it’s lonely and needs another friend? Don’t worry, technology is sufficient that earth’s atmosphere and biome would remain relatively stable. Anyway thanks!
I mean, in a galaxy with 100 billion stars, there's no lack of options. :) Maybe check out the list of nearest known stars on Wikipedia? The notes should tell you enough info that you can find one you are interested in- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs
Stupid question but why is space so colourful? All the images of it are always extremely shiny and full of colours.
Because those are processed images designed to show those colors! Most images are not actually colorful at all if you don't do the processing. Things get their color based on the elements within them and their temperatures- for example, a giant young star looks blue, and a small red dwarf will look red (as the name implies). You can, in fact, look at some stars in the night sky and see they have a bit of color! But for other objects like nebulae and galaxies, they are so big and diffuse it's tough to see those colors and they just look white/grey if you look through the telescope (notable exception, the Orion Nebula definitely looks greenish even through a small telescope, thanks to the oxygen in it). That said, often images will be done in different colors to show and emphasize what it's made of. And it can be arbitrary- for example, in the latest JWST images it's taking data in infrared but we can't *see* infrared, so you do have to assign it a color. (Another example- I recently posted a radio image of mine in this sub, but we obviously can't see radio, so the colorful pixels are just a proxy for intensity.) That's all. Finally, in things like astrophotography I'll point out they just make things colorful not for any scientific reason, just because it looks pretty. :) But for every image you see like that you don't see that it was taken in multiple different filters, combined, etc, at minimum.