Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Riegel_Haribo OP t1_itfkm45 wrote

Maybe closer to a thousand cosmic ray artifacts across six different filters, from Webb's NIRCam sensor being struck by high-energy particles during long exposures, leaving both a ring-shaped halo when they are removed, and a picture peppered with dots when they aren't recognized by the ground processing.

With other tedious astro magic; I think I improved a bit on another "I processed" post from earlier this week: https://i.imgur.com/Pxy42Mh.png (we can now recognize the mirrored image of galaxies)

This galaxy's fireworks show is sure to challenge our understanding: https://i.imgur.com/oaaNUM9.jpg

28

bk15dcx t1_itfnv2c wrote

What's causing the gravitation? I don't see a black hole or any dark matter.

1

Riegel_Haribo OP t1_itfondo wrote

Mass, warping spacetime. (Let me know when you invent a telescope that sees "black" and "dark" things...)

Abell 2744 is itself featured on the Wikipedia gravitational lens page.

14

bk15dcx t1_itfra8b wrote

So it's mass we cannot see?

And yes, I'll let you know when my breakthrough telescope is ready.

8

sight19 t1_ithl319 wrote

Dark matter of the galaxy cluster is causing lensing. It actually warps background galaxies even on relatively large angular distances from the cluster (what we call 'weak lensing'). This only produce a small effect, but if we stack this effect, we can effectively 'draw in' the shape and location of the DM in the cluster. This has been done before, in for example the Bullet cluster or the Toothbrush cluster (I know, we are really creative with names here...)

1

wowsosquare t1_itigqkw wrote

AMAZING... and I never thought about cosmic rays and the space telescopes. Now that I think about it, how do we get any of these great pictures, given that the telescopes and their sensors are constantly being blasted with these high energy particles

1

Riegel_Haribo OP t1_itj4tby wrote

They could certainly be handled better than they currently are in STScI pipeline processing. Here is just one filter of this observation: an area with full coverage of the four dithers, made of exposures with ten integration groups each... and we still get the halo rings of poorly-removed "snowballs" peppering our picture:

https://i.imgur.com/aVEQDWB.jpg

Now overlay six layers of that.

And here's an animated GIF of the exposures that make up a dithering, with the constant sparkles and some incidental streaks of lower energy cosmic rays that should have been cleaned by earlier ramp jump detection, becoming a background noise:

https://i.imgur.com/lE8Yqyl.gif

You can see some of this in a square at the center of the left edge of the Abell image with low dither coverage.

In the last frame of the GIF, see both a "removed" snowball in the middle, and an unremoved blob at the lower edge.

The solution is many more shorter dither observations, and processing that takes a comprehensive start-to-end removal strategy.

3

wowsosquare t1_itk0jkk wrote

W9ow I didn't know so much thought went into making these!

3

Alien_Fruit t1_itk5qg2 wrote

I was just about to say the same thing! It must be an exhausting job, cleaning up these images! But the result is fantissimo!

3

aliveandwellthanks t1_itg4cjn wrote

Sometimes I feel the enormity of the perspective with the very idea that I can see an entire galaxy end to end. How far I must be away from it.

17

thezenfisherman t1_itg670b wrote

Great work. This is the best I have seen so far.

8

Thoughtfulprof t1_itgsfcm wrote

This looks fantastic. It also makes me feel very small.

6

Alien_Fruit t1_itk5xz3 wrote

Very small, indeed!! It may be an African proverb (or that of an Irish mariner - big debate), but there is a saying that I really love: " God, thy oceans are so vast ... and my boat is so small." I would like to see this expressed somehow on the first intergalactic space craft.

2

Lil-djuro-18 t1_itfq2l8 wrote

Beautiful image but i have no idea how many galaxies are lensed here. Any idea?

5

Manethen t1_ith0vsu wrote

Here's an example with Hubble Deep Field. There's an enormous number of galaxies all around us.

And Abell 2744 is a cluster : galaxies regrouping because of gravity. Hope it helps :)

11

[deleted] t1_ithx4tw wrote

[deleted]

5

scupking83 t1_itiq6fl wrote

Probably millions if not billions of civilizations in that picture!

3

ChewpRL t1_itjlwr7 wrote

All a product of a random universe with no explanation to its existence. It's so bizarre.

1

GtrPlaynFool t1_ith1mmr wrote

Do you have a handy link where I can download a higher res version of this?

4

Riegel_Haribo OP t1_itid5xp wrote

This is a lossless PNG after you click on it, 3840x3840. If you can't right-click, https://i.redd.it/9ad48phv7iv91.png

Working resolution of both dithered modules was over 40000 pixels when I do subpixel alignment, but this depicted area is essentially 2048x2048 of a single NIRCam longwave sensor (expanded a bit by dither), overlaid with a grid of four of the same sensors in shortwave, so there is not more information to be seen.

Here's a full view of both modules at slightly higher resolution, but without a lot of the work done for presentation, download button lower right: https://lensdump.com/i/1yhJhe

3

Alien_Fruit t1_itk6iqs wrote

Took a screen shot of the first link above -- this is going onto my monitor back-screen ... just to keep me humble. I simply cannot begin to wrap my mind around the vastness of this universe ... one just HAS to think there must be billions of planets out there with intelligent life. I wonder if the human species will ever get to find them -- they are so very far away and may be long gone.

1

myotherpresence t1_ith2ny5 wrote

I know very little about the image processing techniques you're using to clean it up, it's pretty stunning though!

I wondered what it might sound like so I processed it in Photosounder and posted this video on my channel. Hope you don't mind!

I can take it down if it breaches any image copyright stuff.

https://youtu.be/0n2Rp2NmRC0

3

tmac2go t1_ithdesh wrote

That's awesome! Is it possible to make the video the exact same time length as the sound bar? That way you could put the playback dot right where you want the sound bar.

1

myotherpresence t1_ithgr38 wrote

Thanks! :)

I'm not sure that will improve the user experience much, so I probably won't be doing that. You're supposed to press play and let it run :)

2

Decent-Discount-831 t1_ith7zzb wrote

Does anyone know what that thing is at the ~top middle (a little down from the top)? I know that it’s obviously not, but to me it looks like a man made star 😅

3

Ellocodeinternet t1_ithaa1x wrote

the hexagonal thingy that looks like a star? from what i understand is an artifact caused by the jwsp mirrors

2

echothree33 t1_itj0ps5 wrote

I believe that’s a star in our galaxy (Milky Way) so the mirrors/lenses on JWST show the 6-pointed artifact. For things further away (i.e. other galaxies) that doesn’t happen.

1

tmac2go t1_itfrbqd wrote

Is this the area where they show the galaxies orbiting a black hole?

2

tulanir t1_itgz14d wrote

There is no known black hole that is anywhere near big enough to put an entire galaxy in orbit around it. You might be mixing this up with the first Webb photo showing distortion from other galaxies in the foreground (not a black hole)

(Sidenote: supermassive black holes don't hold galaxies together either. For example, Sagittarius A* makes up about 0.0004% of the Milky Way's mass)

3

stovemonky t1_ithy26o wrote

Near the orange galaxies top center-left, zooming in shows a galaxy with a green dot on either end. Does that indicate lensing of the green dot which is behind the galaxy? Looks like a greenish star, really coherent to be a galaxy. Wouldn't expect an independent object the be visible from behind an entire galaxy.

2

Riegel_Haribo OP t1_itip53v wrote

I assume you mean this galaxy, located at 00:14:20.5913283 -30:23:08.694830 seen here in RGBB: 277, 200, 150, 115: https://i.imgur.com/Ct8uioP.png

I think we have arm features seen edge-on, like other galaxies that have a ring-like appearance. The two dots look quite green in 200W because there is a large loss of angular resolution when we step to redder 277W using the longwave part of the instrument.

They also do not bear the same z redshift signature of being the same source. In my sensitive mapping, they have a ratio 0.85, 0.75, 1.10 in 150, 200, 277 with a four-pixel encirclement. Luminance difference showing here: https://i.imgur.com/eNRMwJh.jpg

Overlaying the field's calculated angular offset gradient, we do not see the warp required for a mirroring: https://i.imgur.com/BJYJOT9.jpg

There's lots of galactic companions brought out in this image, some likely to be coincidental, but others that appear even purple, from both a strong short and long infrared-shifted component of star formation in early globular clusters.

4

stovemonky t1_itittnp wrote

You are absolutely amazing. Not only for your evidence-backed assertions which this simpleton can follow, but also for the fact that you pinpointed my super-generic location description. Thank you very kindly!

2

Hopeful_1768 t1_itj0w6w wrote

if you don't mind the question: who are you, and how do you get the raw image data?

2

Grandviewsurfer t1_itl9wy4 wrote

Very disorienting. And by that I guess I mean orienting? Haha. The added detail really enhances immersion. Great work OP. Truly baffling.

2

scupking83 t1_itipnr6 wrote

Just think how many civilizations are looking back at us in that picture!

1

Riegel_Haribo OP t1_itkcjjj wrote

Far fewer than one might imagine. We have a lookback time over 10 billion years in those that are beyond the galactic cluster, less time to evolve from the complex elements of multiple generations of starstuff. They are looking at a Milky Way billions of years before the Earth formed.

2

b407driver t1_itgmsn7 wrote

Is this a video? What does 4K have to do with a still image?

−8

Riegel_Haribo OP t1_itgob3k wrote

"4k" does not define moving pictures, but rather, a resolution. This image is 3840 pixels wide - and so is a 4k UHD display you might be viewing it on.

12

b407driver t1_itgoiun wrote

Right, but it is a spec that is typically used for video, as it is pretty paltry for a still. Just wondering if there was some aspect I missed.

−8

echothree33 t1_itj17m5 wrote

True but the nice thing is if you view it on a 4K display it will be pixel-perfect, so the clarity will be maximized.

1