James Webb Telescope

RecoveringYuppy said:
The claim they sustained a fusion reaction in that test is almost certainly wrong. They are so far away from required temperatures for fusion they aren't even bothering to use the right isotope mix for these experiments.
Click to expand...

Not being a physicist, I can't say. One of things i hate about press reports of highly technical subjects is their lack of precision.
 
acbytesla said:
Not being a physicist, I can't say. One of things i hate about press reports of highly technical subjects is their lack of precision.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, if they get too precise they are incomprehensible to someone without a PhD.

I was once criticised for getting most of my science knowledge from pop sci magazines like New Scientist and Scientific American, rather than going to the original peer-reviewed journals. I replied that I wasn't qualified to read the journals. Particularly in the case of physics, I don't have the language or the mathematics to read published papers, so I need to have them filtered through the medium of pop sci so that they're comprehensible to me. Yes, this sacrifices some precision. But it's kind of necessary.
 
arthwollipot said:
On the other hand, if they get too precise they are incomprehensible to someone without a PhD.

I was once criticised for getting most of my science knowledge from pop sci magazines like New Scientist and Scientific American, rather than going to the original peer-reviewed journals. I replied that I wasn't qualified to read the journals. Particularly in the case of physics, I don't have the language or the mathematics to read published papers, so I need to have them filtered through the medium of pop sci so that they're comprehensible to me. Yes, this sacrifices some precision. But it's kind of necessary.
Click to expand...

It is a conundrum. I face the same challenge. But New Scientist and Scientific American usually does a pretty good job. It just seems very important to this story to say whether China only maintained this high temperature plasma and did or didn't achieve a fusion reaction.
 
New video from Dr. Becky about something you may have seen in the news recently.

The most distant star ever observed (at least that's what they believe), with the Hubble telescope. It's something they are planning to take a closer look at with the JWST later on. The astronomers have applied for time on the JWST and been approved:



Because it is so distant, it might be a Population III star, the first stars to form after the Big Bang. Such a star would lack heavy elements, but would produce heavy elements when it goes supernova. So, if this is confirmed it would not only be the most distant star ever observed, but the only Population III star ever found.
 
Puppycow said:
New video from Dr. Becky about something you may have seen in the news recently.

The most distant star ever observed (at least that's what they believe), with the Hubble telescope. It's something they are planning to take a closer look at with the JWST later on. The astronomers have applied for time on the JWST and been approved:



Because it is so distant, it might be a Population III star, the first stars to form after the Big Bang. Such a star would lack heavy elements, but would produce heavy elements when it goes supernova. So, if this is confirmed it would not only be the most distant star ever observed, but the only Population III star ever found.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I saw this video yesterday. Pretty damn cool. Basically this idea suggests that the Big Bang happened, after which the first stars were formed with theonly available lighter elements. But there still wasn't the rest of the periodic table.

Then billions of years later when they dief and went Supernova were the necessary heavier elements including carbon our building block of life was produced.

Not sure why, but I really like Dr. Becky's videos.
 
Last edited:
Cheetah said:
Since the oldest galaxy we have a fuzzy photo of formed 400 million years after the BB, don’t get your hopes
Edit: Or am I wrong? Could a galaxy have formed early enough to have travelled far enough away, to now be billions of light years further from us than one that formed 400 million years after the BB? I actually don’t know. It just sounded wrong when I read it. Oops.
Click to expand...

Anton Petrov on the farthest galaxy so far.
https://youtu.be/aT75eVb4jdI
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I saw this video yesterday. Pretty damn cool. Basically this idea suggests that the Big Bang happened, after which the first stars were formed with theonly available lighter elements. But there still wasn't the rest of the periodic table.

Then billions of years later when they dief and went Supernova were the necessary heavier elements including carbon our building block of life was produced.

Not sure why, but I really like Dr. Becky's videos.
Click to expand...

She knows her stuff, it's her actual job so she has access to first hand reporting of stuff, she's enthusiastic, clearly very, very clever, speaks very well, creates excellent presentations and is very good looking. What's not to like?
 
acbytesla said:
I saw this video yesterday. Pretty damn cool. Basically this idea suggests that the Big Bang happened, after which the first stars were formed with theonly available lighter elements. But there still wasn't the rest of the periodic table.

Then billions of years later when they dief and went Supernova were the necessary heavier elements including carbon our building block of life was produced.
Click to expand...

Supergiant stars can have very short lives, sometimes less than a million years. So they would start kicking out heavier elements much sooner than a billion years after formation. But obviously the buildup of heavier elements within galaxies would only start with the first supergiant deaths, and it still continues to this day.
 
Ziggurat said:
Supergiant stars can have very short lives, sometimes less than a million years. So they would start kicking out heavier elements much sooner than a billion years after formation. But obviously the buildup of heavier elements within galaxies would only start with the first supergiant deaths, and it still continues to this day.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: cool. I'm absolutely convinced that there is life throughout the universe. Maybe not life capable of space travel, but definitely life. I wonder when life first appeared in the universe?
 
acbytesla said:
:thumbsup: cool. I'm absolutely convinced that there is life throughout the universe. Maybe not life capable of space travel, but definitely life. I wonder when life first appeared in the universe?
Click to expand...

My guess is that probably would take at least a few billion years, since you probably need rocky planets with water, so you need a lot more than just trace amounts of heavier elements. But it might not take near as long as it took Earth. Open question, though.
 
Ziggurat said:
My guess is that probably would take at least a few billion years, since you probably need rocky planets with water, so you need a lot more than just trace amounts of heavier elements. But it might not take near as long as it took Earth. Open question, though.
Click to expand...

So much has to be right. It must have the necessary mix of elements etc so it has to be after the first stars were formed and died. And then the right conditions has to occur on the planet. It has to be perfect. But with so many stars and planets out there, it seems absurd to think it hasn't over and over.
 
We don't actual know what has to be "right" or if the conditions for life warrant the word "perfect".
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
We don't actual know what has to be "right" or if the conditions for life warrant the word "perfect".
Click to expand...

True. Our understanding of abiogenisis is very limited. This is one area of science it seems that there should be a lot more research.
 
Green = Instrument target temperature reached

Frame and mirror
Primary Mirror -231° 42K
Instrument Radiator -237° (37K)
Fine Steering Motor -241° (32K)

Instruments
MIRI -268° (6K)
NIRcam-235° (38K)
NIRSpec-239° (34K)
FGS/NIRISS -235° (39K)

All Instruments have reached their target operational temperatures. All that is left for JWST to be commissioned are the final connections....

...then Let the Science Begin!!
 
smartcooky said:
Green = Instrument target temperature reached

Frame and mirror
Primary Mirror -231° 42K
Instrument Radiator -237° (37K)
Fine Steering Motor -241° (32K)

Instruments
MIRI -268° (6K)
NIRcam-235° (38K)
NIRSpec-239° (34K)
FGS/NIRISS -235° (39K)

All Instruments have reached their target operational temperatures. All that is left for JWST to be commissioned are the final connections....

...then Let the Science Begin!!
Click to expand...

So so cool. :thumbsup:

I was skeptical that the telescope was going to work. I was sure that something was going to go wrong. I remember too well when the Hubble was a very expensive joke.

BTW: Have you turned in an application for time on it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom