• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

James Webb Telescope

NASA isn't about exploitable resources any more. The current policy is that NASA and other governmental agencies will concentrate on deep-sky exploration and research, and commercial interests will take care of exploitation. SpaceX opened that door, but they will not be the only ones to go through it.

As far as I know, NASA has never been about exploitable resources in the sense you mean. They've always handed off to private enterprise whenever possible. They have, however, been involved in projects that have immediate benefits for humanity on Earth. Landsat, for example.

You're talking about commercial profits. I'm talking about benefits to humanity and NASA having limited resources. If NASA is going to do pure science with no immediate benefit, I'd rather they tackle some of the big questions. I'd rather they do missions that help us develop a better model of galaxy evolution.

That tell us more about black holes and what happens in high gravity, high energy scenarios we can't create here.

That help us refine the competing predictions of cosmological redshift and converge on an agreed value.

That better sift the interstellar energies for signs of intelligent life.

Looking more closely at exoplanets does none of this. Looking specifically at "habitable" exoplanets just seems like a human interest mission. An appeal to emotion. I'm not a fan. If we're going to throw a new telescope up there, I'd rather it do serious fundamental research into the nature of our reality. Not inspect rando rocks orbiting rando stars.
 
Sometimes appeals to emotion aren't fallacies. We humans are emotional beings - emotion motivates us in ways that logic just doesn't.
 
How is studying black holes any more "useful" than finding habitable exoplanets?

Both are interesting science questions but without any immediate practical value.

Assuming that it works as planned it could find lots of exoplanets that aren't findable by methods like the transit method, which only works for a tiny subset of exoplanets that just happen by chance to orbit at an angle that makes them transit from our perspective. Mostly planets with very short orbital periods, orbiting closer to their stars than Mercury orbits our sun. I think it's a great mission.

If we do find extraterrestrial life, that would be amazing. I suspect life is more common but technological civilizations like our own are probably rather rare. I also don't believe in Dyson spheres.
 
Last edited:
How is studying black holes any more "useful" than finding habitable exoplanets?

Both are interesting science questions but without any immediate practical value.

Assuming that it works as planned it could find lots of exoplanets that aren't findable by methods like the transit method, which only works for a tiny subset of exoplanets that just happen by chance to orbit at an angle that makes them transit from our perspective. Mostly planets with very short orbital periods, orbiting closer to their stars than Mercury orbits our sun. I think it's a great mission.

If we do find extraterrestrial life, that would be amazing. I suspect life is more common but technological civilizations like our own are probably rather rare. I also don't believe in Dyson spheres.
Spectral lines from atmospheres will be the proof of life elsewhere, I thought this was uncontroversial.
But early black holes are fascinating. And logical, I wonder if JWT might find an exact time when there were two points in the early universe that were isolated by the speed of light. Was this as early as Alan Guth's inflation proposition? Is inflation under major attack? These are the questions JWT can advance beyond thought experiment.
Or not, I have no idea, but if the universe cannot transition from finite to infinite, a given, can it transition from communication by photon to non communication?
 
How is studying black holes any more "useful" than finding habitable exoplanets?

Both are interesting science questions but without any immediate practical value.

Assuming that it works as planned it could find lots of exoplanets that aren't findable by methods like the transit method, which only works for a tiny subset of exoplanets that just happen by chance to orbit at an angle that makes them transit from our perspective. Mostly planets with very short orbital periods, orbiting closer to their stars than Mercury orbits our sun. I think it's a great mission.

If we do find extraterrestrial life, that would be amazing. I suspect life is more common but technological civilizations like our own are probably rather rare. I also don't believe in Dyson spheres.
Fair enough. I'm not saying we shouldn't look for exoplanets. I just think they should be a lot farther down our priority list.

To me, exoplanets are like Kuiper Belt objects. We know they're out there, we know we can find more if we look harder. But nobody is prioritizing any missions to discover and catalog them all. To me, finding more exoplanets is merely a technical exercise. Let the ESA do it, or JAXA. Or the Chinese, if they want to show off their skills.

As I understand it, there are two big questions in cosmology today. One is, we have two competing models for spacetime expansion, that predict two different and incompatible expansion rates. Observations that helped us converge on one of those models, or develop a superseding model, would be a breakthrough in cosmological physics. I would prioritize a mission aimed at that goal.

The other question is, how do we get better galaxy formation models. The current ones involve a lot of guesswork, partly because we don't have a good view of very young galaxies. JWST has improved that view, and shown that a lot of our guesswork is wrong. Figuring out a better galaxy formation model would also be a breakthrough in cosmological physics. I would prioritize a mission aimed at that goal.

As for black holes: We're limited in the amount of energy we can put into particle collisions. We're pretty sure there's interesting things going on, at much higher energy levels than we can current command. The accretion disks around black holes are a high energy environment. The energies they release create quasars, some of the brightest objects in the sky. If we could figure out a way to get a better look at what happens to matter in the vicinity of black holes, it might teach us a thing or two about particle physics that we can't learn here on earth. I would prioritize a mission aimed at that goal.

Generally, I would prioritize the Hubble-West trend: more advanced telescopes looking further and further back, towards the beginning of the universe as we know it.
 
Last edited:
It seems odd to criticize the JWST for not answering the questions you're admitting it's helping to answer.
 
It seems odd to criticize the JWST for not answering the questions you're admitting it's helping to answer.
It seems odd to me, too. Which is why I wasn't doing it.

I like JWST. I like that it took us beyond what the Hubble telescope could show us. I like that it took us further back towards the beginning of the universe. I like that it's already telling us new things about what's back there. I absolutely love that it's already helping us falsify our current galaxy formation models.

I want more of that. I want our next priority to be something that goes even further, that takes us beyond what JWST can show us. I don't want NASA to spend its limited budget on shifting our attention away from that goal.

And in the meantime, I am super happy that JWST finally got off the ground, and I'm super happy about all the things it has shown us and has yet to show us.

---

It seems odd that you'd interpret my previous posts as criticism of JWST. I thought it was pretty clear that I consider it a huge step in the right direction, and that I want to continue taking big steps in that direction. Can you quote the passage from my posts that gave you the impression I was criticizing JWST?
 
With my highlighting.

As I understand it, there are two big questions in cosmology today. One is, we have two competing models for spacetime expansion, that predict two different and incompatible expansion rates . Observations that helped us converge on one of those models, or develop a superseding model, would be a breakthrough in cosmological physics. I would prioritize a mission aimed at that goal.
I don't know what theprestige thinks those two competing models might be.

Historically, we once had steady state models competing with Big Bang models, but observations pretty much ruled out the steady state models decades ago.

So far as I know, all currently viable models for spacetime expansion are variations of the ΛCDM models.

Another thread's most prolific poster has been going on and on about the so-called Hubble tension. The Hubble tension concerns two complementary (not competing) general techniques for estimating the Hubble constant, which is a dependent parameter of ΛCDM models. Those two techniques give estimates that differ by up to 10%, which is a big improvement over the factor-of-two uncertainty that prevailed from the 1930s through the 1990s. Those two techniques are not competing models of spacetime expansion, although it seems likely that research aimed at understanding why those techniques give different estimates will improve our models of spacetime expansion.

Amusingly, the poster who's been making the most noise about the Hubble tension recently directed our attention to an essay that refers to people who make "so much noise and commotion surrounding Hubble tension" as "sheep-cosmologists" who have succumbed to "groupthink".

The other question is, how do we get better galaxy formation models. The current ones involve a lot of guesswork, partly because we don't have a good view of very young galaxies. JWST has improved that view, and shown that a lot of our guesswork is wrong. Figuring out a better galaxy formation model would also be a breakthrough in cosmological physics. I would prioritize a mission aimed at that goal.
Yes.

As for black holes: We're limited in the amount of energy we can put into particle collisions. We're pretty sure there's interesting things going on, at much higher energy levels than we can current command. The accretion disks around black holes are a high energy environment. The energies they release create quasars, some of the brightest objects in the sky. If we could figure out a way to get a better look at what happens to matter in the vicinity of black holes, it might teach us a thing or two about particle physics that we can't learn here on earth. I would prioritize a mission aimed at that goal.
Yes. I would add that recent studies of black holes have confirmed several of general relativity's most spectacular predictions (e.g. gravitational waves, the Kerr metric) and given us our first truly detailed photographs of a black hole and its dynamics.

Generally, I would prioritize the Hubble-West trend: more advanced telescopes looking further and further back, towards the beginning of the universe as we know it.
Yes.
 
I missed that you were rustled about the next telescope plan to study exoplanets, and not the exoplanets being studied by the present telescope. Mea culpa.

If you look at the pdf though, you'll note it's a general purpose space telescope, not JUST an exoplanet thing.
 
This mission is not just looking for exoplanets. It's looking for exoplanets with the conditions suitable to support Earth-like life. There's only one planet we know of with those conditions. Finding another one would be stunning.
 
With my highlighting.


I don't know what theprestige thinks those two competing models might be.

Historically, we once had steady state models competing with Big Bang models, but observations pretty much ruled out the steady state models decades ago.

So far as I know, all currently viable models for spacetime expansion are variations of the ΛCDM models.

Another thread's most prolific poster has been going on and on about the so-called Hubble tension. The Hubble tension concerns two complementary (not competing) general techniques for estimating the Hubble constant, which is a dependent parameter of ΛCDM models. Those two techniques give estimates that differ by up to 10%, which is a big improvement over the factor-of-two uncertainty that prevailed from the 1930s through the 1990s. Those two techniques are not competing models of spacetime expansion, although it seems likely that research aimed at understanding why those techniques give different estimates will improve our models of spacetime expansion.

Amusingly, the poster who's been making the most noise about the Hubble tension recently directed our attention to an essay that refers to people who make "so much noise and commotion surrounding Hubble tension" as "sheep-cosmologists" who have succumbed to "groupthink".


Yes.


Yes. I would add that recent studies of black holes have confirmed several of general relativity's most spectacular predictions (e.g. gravitational waves, the Kerr metric) and given us our first truly detailed photographs of a black hole and its dynamics.


Yes.

Thank you for the correction.
 
This mission is not just looking for exoplanets. It's looking for exoplanets with the conditions suitable to support Earth-like life. There's only one planet we know of with those conditions. Finding another one would be stunning.
My understanding is that everything we currently know about planets and stars leads us to the reasonable conclusion that there must be thousands of such planets in the Milky Way, at least. What would be stunning is if we kept looking and looking, but never found one. And finding one won't do much to advance our knowledge. Not in the same way that resolving the Hubble Tension, or getting a better galaxy formation model would.

NASA has limited resources, which I would prefer they prioritize on the biggest questions of cosmological and particle physics. Let ESA or JAXA or CMSA look for planets we totally expect to be found sooner or later. If it comes to later, and still none have been found, then we can maybe revisit the question. That's my opinion, anyway. I'm well aware that there are people who believe that NASA needs to prioritize this. I disagree with them, for the reasons stated. I want more of JWST, and less of whatever takes resources away from the next JWST.
 
Should we be surprised?
Same amount of material, including the current unobservable universe, which could be 256 times the observable, in a small volume?
A related question I have not seen addressed, is the 80% that is dark matter good for the manufacture of black holes?
I may not be picturing the same thing you are describing.

But it is an interesting thought. If after the big bang not everything expanded all at once but instead there were more black holes than today accounting for a large bit of the mass. Then how do you get from all those black holes to the current observable universe that doesn't have them all?
 
This mission is not just looking for exoplanets. It's looking for exoplanets with the conditions suitable to support Earth-like life. There's only one planet we know of with those conditions. Finding another one would be stunning.

What would be more stunning would be spectroscopic observations of an exoplanet atmosphere that strongly indicated that life was indeed present on such a planet. I'm not necessarily talking about advanced civilisations, but just a marker that shows that life has evolved elsewhere.

Dr. Becky is confident for such a discovery in 2024!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ3ZJjqu3NQ&t

@8:48.

Whether that is wishful thinking on her part, or she knows something we don't, is anyone's guess!
 
Last edited:
What would be more stunning would be spectroscopic observations of an exoplanet atmosphere that strongly indicated that life was indeed present on such a planet. I'm not necessarily talking about advanced civilisations, but just a marker that shows that life has evolved elsewhere.

Dr. Becky is confident for such a discovery in 2024!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ3ZJjqu3NQ&t

@8:48.

Whether that is wishful thinking on her part, or she knows something we don't, is anyone's guess!
If JWT fails to find such evidence we are stuck on the second singularity, self replicating molecules occurring as often as the big bang.
 
Last edited:
I may not be picturing the same thing you are describing.

But it is an interesting thought. If after the big bang not everything expanded all at once but instead there were more black holes than today accounting for a large bit of the mass. Then how do you get from all those black holes to the current observable universe that doesn't have them all?
I am picturing all matter created in the big bang, including dark matter.
That is a lot of stuff in a tiny volume. Black holes should be easy to make. Dark matter is the elephant in the room, no one discusses it in the context of the big bang, either it was all made then, or is doing a Fred Hoyle thing.
 
What would be more stunning would be spectroscopic observations of an exoplanet atmosphere that strongly indicated that life was indeed present on such a planet.

For me that would not be stunning at all. Our current theories about the emergence of life on Earth all strongly imply that similar processes must be occurring hundreds of thousands of times over in the Milky Way alone. On Earthlike planets that our current planetary theories and observations tell us might exist in the billions.

I'm not going to be stunned by discovering something I fully expected to discover, that tells me nothing more than that my current theories are doing just fine.

The bigger cosmological questions, having to do with the Hubble Tension, galaxy formation, and high-energy particle physics, represent known gaps in our current understanding of reality. New discoveries in those areas are much more likely to tell us things we don't already know, and cause upheaval in our current theories of how things work.

Dr. Becky is confident for such a discovery in 2024!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ3ZJjqu3NQ&t

@8:48.

Whether that is wishful thinking on her part, or she knows something we don't, is anyone's guess!
Discovering it within the year might be wishful thinking, but, again, we're predicting that Earthlike planets with some form of life will be found if we go looking for them.
 
Last edited:
For me that would not be stunning at all. Our current theories about the emergence of life on Earth all strongly imply that similar processes must be occurring hundreds of thousands of times over in the Milky Way alone. On Earthlike planets that our current planetary theories and observations tell us might exist in the billions.

I'm not going to be stunned by discovering something I fully expected to discover, that tells me nothing more than that my current theories are doing just fine.


Until we find one there's nothing at all to indicate that <earth like planet> = <life>

Until we find life out there somewhere, all this speculation about life on other planets is just drawing a best-fit line on a graph based on one data point - pointless.
 
Until we find one there's nothing at all to indicate that <earth like planet> = <life>

I would say that the fact that there's an earth like planet with life on it is something to indicate it.

What we know of life on earth suggests that it needs an anti-entropic energy gradient. Some large gap between the energy coming in from the star and the energy's lowest state on the planet. A gap large enough and with conditions suitable for that energy to enable complex chemical reactions. And we know that a rocky planet with liquid water is to some degree conducive to this kind of process.

I doubt that this is the only scenario in which a large energy gradient and complex chemistry can occur. But it's one scenario in which we know it can occur.

And our theories about how life emerged on Earth aren't special to Earth. They're supposed to be derived from general principles that apply anywhere in the universe where the physics are the same as the physics we know here.

With billions of earthlike worlds in the Milky Way, what would stun me is if, statistically, none of the others produced even simple life. Everything we think we know, everything we tell ourselves about how life evolved on Earth, includes the implicit assumption, the necessary prediction that if it's happening here it's almost certainly happening in a lot of places. Nothing about the theory of evolution should lead us to the conclusion that it's unique to this one planet. Everything about it should lead us to the conclusion that we'll find it over and over again, if we keep looking.

So no, I won't be amazed if we keep looking and find it once or twice.
 
So no, I won't be amazed if we keep looking and find it once or twice.

I'll be amazed if we find extraterrestrial life in my lifetime (I won't be in a position to evaluate what happens after that). But it's the finding part that will amaze me, not the fact that it exists. My hunch is that life isn't sufficiently common for us to be able to see it from Earth with anything we're currently considering doing.
 
I'll be amazed if we find extraterrestrial life in my lifetime (I won't be in a position to evaluate what happens after that). But it's the finding part that will amaze me, not the fact that it exists. My hunch is that life isn't sufficiently common for us to be able to see it from Earth with anything we're currently considering doing.

Yeah, fair enough. I can go along with that. In which case I'll reframe my objection that it's not a capability we should be trying to improve right now.
 
For me that would not be stunning at all. Our current theories about the emergence of life on Earth all strongly imply that similar processes must be occurring hundreds of thousands of times over in the Milky Way alone. On Earthlike planets that our current planetary theories and observations tell us might exist in the billions.

I'm not going to be stunned by discovering something I fully expected to discover, that tells me nothing more than that my current theories are doing just fine.

The bigger cosmological questions, having to do with the Hubble Tension, galaxy formation, and high-energy particle physics, represent known gaps in our current understanding of reality. New discoveries in those areas are much more likely to tell us things we don't already know, and cause upheaval in our current theories of how things work.


Discovering it within the year might be wishful thinking, but, again, we're predicting that Earthlike planets with some form of life will be found if we go looking for them.

We don't have any way of estimating the rate of abiogenesis on earth-like worlds. It's entirely possible and consistent with everything we know that it's only happened once in our galaxy so far, and even only once in the nearest million galaxies so far. Looking for data on this question is an entirely legitimate scientific undertaking.
 
Here's two scenarios consistent with everything we know:

1. Given an earth like world, on average you'll get abiogenesis somewhere on that world 1/100 million years. 90% of those will survive long enough to build up a stable reproductive population. Of those 90% will survive to leave descendants billions of years later. As such, given an earth like world we'd expect to find both life and life with billions year long evolutionary history.

2. Given an earth like world, on average you get abiogenesis 1/1040 years. Of those 90% survive long enough to build up a stable reproductive population, and 90% of those leave descendants on the order of billions of years later.

Both scenarios are consistent with the existence of life on earth and with the fact that the conditions of the early earth are sufficient for the emergence of life, they only differ in the chance of that happening per unit time.

Sometimes it's suggested that we do have evidence about that rate: we know that life emerged very early in the earth's history, so this seems to be evidence that given its conditions at the time, the chance/unit time of abiogenesis was high. But this ignores observer selection effects:

From Nick Bostrom's Anthropic Bias:
https://anthropic-principle.com/q=book/chapter_5/#5c
Carter has also suggested a clever way of estimating the number of improbable “critical” steps in the evolution of humans. A princess is locked in a tower. Suitors have to pick five combination locks to get to her. They can do this only through random trial and error, i.e. without memory of which combinations have been tried. A suitor gets one hour to pick all five locks. If he doesn’t succeed within the allotted time, he is beheaded. However, the princess’ charms are such that there is an endless line of hopeful suitors waiting their turn.

After the deaths of some unknown number of suitors, one of them finally passes the test and marries the princess. Suppose that the numbers of possible combinations in the locks are such that the expected time to pick each lock is .01, .1, 1, 10, and 100 hours respectively. Suppose that pick-times for the suitor who got through are (in hours) {.00583, .0934, .248, .276, .319}. By inspecting this set you could reasonably guess that .00583 hour was the pick-time for the easiest lock and .0934 hour the pick-time for the second easiest lock. However, you couldn’t really tell which locks the remaining three pick-times correspond to. This is a typical result. When conditioning on success before the cut-off (in this case 1 hour), the average completion time of a step is nearly independent of its expected completion time, provided the expected completion time is much longer than the cut-off. Thus, for example, even if the expected pick-time of one of the locks had been a million years, you would still find that its average pick-time in successful runs is closer to .2 or .3 than to 1 hour, and you wouldn’t be able to tell it apart from the 1, 10, and 100 hours locks.

If we don’t know the expected pick-times or the number of locks that the suitor had to break, we can obtain estimates of these parameters if we know the time it took him to reach the princess. The less surplus time left over before the cut-off, the greater the number of difficult locks he had to pick. For example, if the successful suitor took 59 minutes to get to the princess, that would favor the hypothesis that he had to pick a fairly large number of locks. If he reached the princess in 35 minutes, that would strongly suggest that the number of difficult locks was small. The relation also works the other way around so that if we are not sure what the maximum allowed time is we can estimate it from information about the number of difficult locks and their combined pick-time in a random successful trial. Monte Carlo simulations confirming these claims have been performed by Robin Hanson, who has also derived some useful analytical expressions (Hanson 1998).

The oceans are going to boil off in about 500 million years, so we're currently pretty close to the cutoff. If there are several critical steps in human evolution, of which abiogenesis is one, we expect them to have been reached with approximately even frequency even if their individual likelihoods are vastly different. So abiogenesis occurring on earth on the order of hundreds of millions of years after it was possible (after the earth cooled off after the initial bombardment) is consistent with abiogenesis being extremely unlikely.

*In Anthropic Bias Bostrom says Carter estimates 2 critical steps, but more recent work I've seen gives more like 4-6. He also uses a cutoff at 9 billion years given the lifetime of main sequence stars, but given increasing stellar output life on earth will be done long before that. Maybe there are reasons to prefer Carter's numbers here, but I think I'm using the more reasonable estimates.
 
Here's two scenarios consistent with everything we know:

1. Given an earth like world, on average you'll get abiogenesis somewhere on that world 1/100 million years. 90% of those will survive long enough to build up a stable reproductive population. Of those 90% will survive to leave descendants billions of years later. As such, given an earth like world we'd expect to find both life and life with billions year long evolutionary history.

2. Given an earth like world, on average you get abiogenesis 1/1040 years. Of those 90% survive long enough to build up a stable reproductive population, and 90% of those leave descendants on the order of billions of years later.

Both scenarios are consistent with the existence of life on earth and with the fact that the conditions of the early earth are sufficient for the emergence of life, they only differ in the chance of that happening per unit time.

Sometimes it's suggested that we do have evidence about that rate: we know that life emerged very early in the earth's history, so this seems to be evidence that given its conditions at the time, the chance/unit time of abiogenesis was high. But this ignores observer selection effects:

From Nick Bostrom's Anthropic Bias:
https://anthropic-principle.com/q=book/chapter_5/#5c


The oceans are going to boil off in about 500 million years, so we're currently pretty close to the cutoff. If there are several critical steps in human evolution, of which abiogenesis is one, we expect them to have been reached with approximately even frequency even if their individual likelihoods are vastly different. So abiogenesis occurring on earth on the order of hundreds of millions of years after it was possible (after the earth cooled off after the initial bombardment) is consistent with abiogenesis being extremely unlikely.

*In Anthropic Bias Bostrom says Carter estimates 2 critical steps, but more recent work I've seen gives more like 4-6. He also uses a cutoff at 9 billion years given the lifetime of main sequence stars, but given increasing stellar output life on earth will be done long before that. Maybe there are reasons to prefer Carter's numbers here, but I think I'm using the more reasonable estimates.

Validating these estimates seems vastly less important than advancing our understanding of cosmological and fundamental particle physics.

Unless we're preparing to seed earthlike worlds with life and hoping for the best evolution has to offer. Which we're not. So why spend NASA's limited budget on it?
 
Validating these estimates seems vastly less important than advancing our understanding of cosmological and fundamental particle physics.
Why? Neither has any real world practical implications. We might make technological advances just because of the innovations that arise from building better telescopes, but they won't come about from cosmology itself. We're never going to use dark energy to build a better power plant, or our understanding of abiogenesis to improve medicine. Both of these questions are about satisfying our curiosity about the nature of the universe and our place in it.

Cosmology may inform our understanding of fundamental particle physics and general relatively, but not in a regime with any technological implications. I agree that's also true about discovering life on an exoplanet. Again, there are plausibly spin-offs that could come about from this sort of research, but that's true of both cosmology and explanatory research. Both require cutting edge telescopes with innovative designs.

I do agree that NASA shouldn't invest exclusively in exoplanet research. There are major questions in cosmology that I'd also like answered, and that seem to be part of NASA's mission to answer. But investigating exoplanets is too.

But maybe the disagreement here is that you see a stronger case for cosmology in general?
 
What would be more stunning would be spectroscopic observations of an exoplanet atmosphere that strongly indicated that life was indeed present on such a planet. I'm not necessarily talking about advanced civilisations, but just a marker that shows that life has evolved elsewhere.
As far as I know, our current atmosphere was created by life. If we find an exoplanet with an abundance of molecular oxygen in its atmosphere, that would be strong circumstantial evidence that life similar to Earth's life exists on that planet.

For me that would not be stunning at all. Our current theories about the emergence of life on Earth all strongly imply that similar processes must be occurring hundreds of thousands of times over in the Milky Way alone. On Earthlike planets that our current planetary theories and observations tell us might exist in the billions.
Might. Yes, we do think that. We thought that antimatter would fall down in the presence of gravity too, but we had to do the experiment to make sure.

Until we find one there's nothing at all to indicate that <earth like planet> = <life>

Until we find life out there somewhere, all this speculation about life on other planets is just drawing a best-fit line on a graph based on one data point - pointless.
Exactly.
 
Well, we are approaching the third year of the mission and telescope time for the third cycle of observations has been allotted and announced:

The James Webb Space Telescope's targets over the next year include black holes, exomoons, dark energy — and more

I guess technically we are already into the third year since the launch, which was on Christmas Day back in 2021. We've also reached a period where public interest seems to have waned to a certain extent.

So, of course there are exomoons. The majority of planets in our own solar system have moons, and the larger ones have multiple moons each. It's just that we have yet to conclusively observe any. Which is hardly surprising given how far away they are. Just detecting exoplanets is already a feat.
 
A horse-shaped nebula gets its close-up in new photos by NASA’s Webb telescope (AP)

Horsehead Nebula (NIRCam image) (ESA)

It's zoomed in so much that you can't even see the overall horsehead shape without zooming out.

Once again, the cool part to me is the galaxies in the background.

When you consider that the Horsehead Nebula is an object over 1,300 light years away, within our own galaxy, and the distant galaxies in the background are of similar size to the entire Milky Way galaxy, it gives you a sense of just how enormous the universe is.

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsehead_Nebula (for a wide shot of the Horsehead Nebula and more information)
 
Amazing stuff! What is the scale in that closeup? It looks like a picture of a wave coming up the beach (except for the beach is stars!) or dense smoke from the neighbor's barbecue, but what is the width on that shot? Lightyears?
 
Amazing stuff! What is the scale in that closeup? It looks like a picture of a wave coming up the beach (except for the beach is stars!) or dense smoke from the neighbor's barbecue, but what is the width on that shot? Lightyears?

According to the second link, the field of view is 2.13 x 2.14 arcminutes.

The Wikipedia article gives a radius of 3.5 light years for the nebula, and 8 x 6 arcminutes for its dimensions. That gives me a rough estimate of 1 light year squared for this image.

I like to start from the third image in the Wikipedia article, which shows "The three bright stars of Orion's Belt with the Horsehead Nebula to the lower left of the belt star Alnitak". You can see those stars with your own eyes on a clear night if you can identify the constellation Orion. You can't really make out the Horsehead nebula though unless you have special equipment (at least, I can't see it with my naked eyes, just the three bright stars of the belt).

604px-Orion_Belt.jpg


There you can see the Nebula in the lower left of the image with the characteristic horse's head shape looking up.

This image zooms in, from a wide shot taken by the Euclid telescope to a narrower one taken by the Hubble, and finally the one taken by the JWST.
 
Thanks for that!

So, about a lightyear square on that close-up would mean (I think) that the sort of fringe area where the dust fades out, the "chopiness" on the very edge of the cloud is bigger than our solar system. And that is a small part of the nebula.

Man, Douglas Adams had it right!
 
And I can see Orion from my yard, it's one of just a couple of constellations I can recognize. But I live in the city and with the light skies I've never seen any sign of the nebula.

I do have an inexpensive 3" reflector on an equatorial mount. If I were to get away from the city lights do you think I could see the nebula with my scope? Or would I need a camera with special filters?
 
Back
Top Bottom