Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

diogenes_shadow t1_j1ntqus wrote

Because JWST "sees" using different wavelengths, it images dust differently. Dust that can be seen in the Hubble photo may be too small to be seen by the longer wavelength used by JWST.

If you put them side by side, you will see patches of dust that are not there in the newer photos.

127

Realeron OP t1_j1nuan7 wrote

Thank you for the education

33

NoAngel815 t1_j1qqlrf wrote

I saw a video by someone who works in the field explaining that the difference is how they capture the images. Hubble captures visible light while JWST uses infrared which can see through the dust.

16

Throwaway_97534 t1_j1nxj62 wrote

What about the earliest images vs the latest images in the same wavelengths? Can any movement or differences be seen?

18

diogenes_shadow t1_j1o4fr8 wrote

Later images may be the result of more recent advances in image processing filters applied.

I'm sure the scientists are adjusting the flow to get the most striking results.

As always you can go back and pull the raw data and check the tags to see how the image collection and processing changed.

8

cecil021 t1_j1rynca wrote

True, it can also see through the dust to view what’s behind it. It sees in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

2

worstusername_sofar t1_j1ns0as wrote

Like, in picture quality, or the actual objects?

20

__WanderLust_ t1_j1nt2o5 wrote

I'm assuming they mean if there's been any movement.

20

Realeron OP t1_j1nw8i8 wrote

Actually I was perhaps naïvely thinking about stars formation. U/diogenes_shadow explanation about the different wavelengths "seen" by Hubble and Webb was appreciated

20

dblowe t1_j1nyf74 wrote

If you’re looking for movement in deep sky objects, pictures of the Crab Nebula do show it slightly expanding over the decades. This was first noticed by observers in 1921.

The object is an expanding cloud of debris from a supernova that was seen to explode in 1054 AD. A more recent one (SN1987a) has shown dramatic changes over the last 35 years, with more to come.

41

twilight-actual t1_j1q6sl5 wrote

Also, nothing is static. Everything is in motion. The pillars of creation are clouds, and like clouds here on earth, they change. These are just on the scale of light years, so change at the macro level takes time. Still, I would expect noticeable change in the decades between when Hubble's original shot was taken, and JWST.

19

wutangjan t1_j1qzjkp wrote

That is the natural prediction of these things, but I believe OP was looking for some specific, graphable differences to support the idea that these things in distant space do actually exist and evolve dynamically. The alternative implies that these distant constructs are either static projections, or somehow exist outside of our bubble of time.

While the thing you said about change at the macro level is spot-on, good science means we must use data to support these understandings, or else we must reject them entirely.

10

Base841 t1_j1qz4k2 wrote

While they are moving, I can't imagine the Pillars would have moved enough to notice, since the clouds are light years long.

But if you want to see actual movement of astronomical objects, look for the stars at the center of our galaxy. Over the course of years of observation since the late 1990's, you can see stars swing around the central black hole, Sag A*. Here's a link: https://youtu.be/TF8THY5spmo

10

lergane t1_j1tm40s wrote

A science magazine explained some years ago how the Pillars don't actually look like they do in the picture. The several different methods of taking the pictures are merged into one and the chemical elements are given colors by the editor's/scientists' decision. As an example there most common elements could be colored red, blue and yellow. With these edits to the material received from the cameras, the end product looks like someone took a picture with their cell phone camera. You just might not see it in the space yourself if you were there.

2