JWST and Hubble have roughly similar angular resolution. Hubble marginally better. JWST needs larger mirror for the same angular resolution because it uses longer wavelengths.
Hubble: 0.04 arcsec at 500 nm
JWST: 0.068 arcsec at 2 μm
The difference is in wavelengths, image quality, and light collecting ability (size of the mirror). Hubble has to stare longer into a same spot to collect the same amount of light as JWST.
(If I remember correctly JWST took this image in less than 12 hours, Hubble stared at it for much longer. Correct me if I'm wrong).
Hubble's composite of SMACS took 5 orbits, which ends up being about a couple hours maximum. Most websites talked about the deep fields such as XDF (hundreds of orbits) while showing the comparison between the RELICS and JWST pictures, which I believe was very misleading from how this is repeated. Not to detract from its capabilities, of course.
I think it's because they are two syllables. After a short time objects named after people* (Carnegie Mellon, FDR Drive etc) tend to lose the association with the person so honored and just become strings. This is doubly so for names of international scope.
Think of Google, Facebook, Netflix, Workday, Coinbase: two syllables, each name an iamb (which is especially effective in English). Sure, there are numerous counterexamples (microsoft, Amazon), but generally the corners get knocked off and even turn into acronyms in public usage (GM, GE).
Single syllables are too short for infrequently used words (this appears to be true for any language) -- you don't want to waste a lot of time saying "am" since you say it a lot; when you say "biceps" you want enough variability that your brain has time to parse it.
This isn't a real image of an exoplanet right? The one in the background. Nowhere does it say that, which I think is beyond the ability of even JWST, to resolve an exoplanet at 50 light years?
These are annoying to me because lacks of real difference from a senior astronaut viewpoint. As a normal user, the only difference i could see is just "brighter", anything more to add to the details ?
JWST shows a much bigger part of the wavelength spectrum. That means it can image things that would just not show up in Hubble.
E.g. think about far away galaxies that have been redshifted so much (due to the expanding universe) that they fell below the lower wavelength threshold of Hubble.
Zoom in on a small section of sky and toggle between James and Hubble. James reveals many additional galaxy in each tiny slice of image. Probably hundreds or more in that one image alone.
Would there be a moment we cannot zoom in further because we hit the event horizon with the jwst? Or are there still hidden galaxies behind what we can see with the jwst?
I think it won't be a hard border per se, but it'll just turn into extremely redshifted noise at some point; beyond infrared you end up in microwaves, which leads to the cosmic microwave background radiation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
The furthest back potentially visible stuff before the dark age won’t be galaxies, which formed after the first stars. We still have never seen a first generation star, and I’d be surprised if Webb could.
There's no drifting there. What you are seeing is gravitational lensing. The light of (most likely a galaxy) is bent around another galaxy or star which distorts its appearance. Also this means it can potentially show up multiple times on the image (e.g. opposite side w.r.t. the lensing object)
[+] [-] nabla9|3 years ago|reply
(If I remember correctly JWST took this image in less than 12 hours, Hubble stared at it for much longer. Correct me if I'm wrong).
[+] [-] 0x_rs|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sph|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|3 years ago|reply
We don’t call the first telescope the Edwin Hubble Space Telescope
[+] [-] gumby|3 years ago|reply
Think of Google, Facebook, Netflix, Workday, Coinbase: two syllables, each name an iamb (which is especially effective in English). Sure, there are numerous counterexamples (microsoft, Amazon), but generally the corners get knocked off and even turn into acronyms in public usage (GM, GE).
Single syllables are too short for infrequently used words (this appears to be true for any language) -- you don't want to waste a lot of time saying "am" since you say it a lot; when you say "biceps" you want enough variability that your brain has time to parse it.
[+] [-] q1w2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|3 years ago|reply
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-...
[+] [-] hrnnnnnn|3 years ago|reply
Exoplanets are too far away and too small to image directly.
[+] [-] revskill|3 years ago|reply
Else i could say, just the same.
[+] [-] atoav|3 years ago|reply
E.g. think about far away galaxies that have been redshifted so much (due to the expanding universe) that they fell below the lower wavelength threshold of Hubble.
[+] [-] testcase_delta|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Azrael3000|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] falseprofit|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] holoduke|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] falseprofit|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fvold|3 years ago|reply
I also want to normalize calling JWST just "James" :)
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|3 years ago|reply
I like "James Webb Science Telescope" for JWST.
[+] [-] dirslashls|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arriu|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Azrael3000|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aardvarkr|3 years ago|reply