• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

James Webb Telescope

They were never seen before because we never had a telescope good enough to see them before. They were not unexpected.

The period in which galaxies began to form is believed to be around 200 to 500 million years after the big bang. The further back into that period we can see, the more galaxies we will see.
 
Who said there are more than we thought?


I think it's at least partly because they are finding more very small, thin galaxies recently. This increases the number of galaxies but not so much the number of stars, because these newly discovered galaxies don't contain many stars.

For every large spiral galaxy like the Milky Way or Andromeda, there are perhaps as many as 100 or more small dwarf galaxies in orbit around them. And the Milky Way has also already merged with other galaxies in the past. Still, the Milky Way itself contains more stars than all of these nearby dwarf galaxies combined.

Here is one that was recently discovered near Andromeda:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220630160031.htm
While astronomers expect the Universe to be teeming with faint galaxies like Pegasus V [2], they have not yet discovered nearly as many as their theories predict. If there are truly fewer faint galaxies than predicted this would imply a serious problem with astronomers' understanding of cosmology and dark matter.
https://scitechdaily.com/unusual-fo...dromeda-could-reveal-history-of-the-universe/
 
They were never seen before because we never had a telescope good enough to see them before. They were not unexpected.

The original deep field Hubble shot, they didn't expect anything. The surface brightness drop off would be too high.

But there they are.

And we see many many more.

How many did you expect?


The period in which galaxies began to form is believed to be around 200 to 500 million years after the big bang. The further back into that period we can see, the more galaxies we will see.

Perhaps some day we will se evidence of that.
 
They were never seen before because we never had a telescope good enough to see them before. They were not unexpected.

The period in which galaxies began to form is believed to be around 200 to 500 million years after the big bang. The further back into that period we can see, the more galaxies we will see.
Clearly correct, Webb has not been a revelation in numbers.
I wonder if the universe looks the same in all directions can be refuted by Webb, thus adding insight to the shape of the observable vs unobservable universe and helping size the damn thing.

The universe is finite.
 
The original deep field Hubble shot, they didn't expect anything. The surface brightness drop off would be too high.

But there they are.

And we see many many more.

How many did you expect?

How many did you expect, and why? Please show your calculations that mean the current results mean that a significant change to our current understanding of the universe is necessary.
 
How many did you expect, and why? Please show your calculations that mean the current results mean that a significant change to our current understanding of the universe is necessary.

If there was no big bang, I would expect that whether we look out 1 billion years, or 7 billion years, or 14 billion years, the density of galaxies on the surface area of such a sphere would be equal at all distances.

Of course, if there was a big bang, between 13 and 14 billion years the density would decrease to 0.

That's what the big bang predicts, and that's not what we're seeing here.
 
So amazingly cool, I could explode.

I honestly never thought I would live long enough to hear this news. Most of what I first learned about astronomy was from The Harvard Books on Astronomy series I read in my high school library in the late 1950s. From a quick Google the series appears to be continuing and publication dates are for both earlier and later years but the ones I read were those published about the same time. In them there was some speculation about what future observation and technology would reveal. The authors of the time wold be exploding alongside arthwollipot and I if they were here today.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
What's amazing to me is just how gaga astrophysicists and astronomers have been. Seriously, these images are nothing short of stunning to them. I thought Dr. Becky was going to lose it she was so excited. I don’t know if JWST was worth the ten billion dollars spent on it but the astronomers sure seem happy.
 
I thought Dr. Becky was going to lose it she was so excited. I don’t know if JWST was worth the ten billion dollars spent on it but the astronomers sure seem happy.

Given that it's working so flawlessly, I think it was well worth it.

There was a chance though that some moving part might have malfunctioned in a way that crippled the whole mission, which would have been very unfortunate. If that had happened, it would have been hard to argue that it was worth it.
 
What's amazing to me is just how gaga astrophysicists and astronomers have been. Seriously, these images are nothing short of stunning to them. I thought Dr. Becky was going to lose it she was so excited. I don’t know if JWST was worth the ten billion dollars spent on it but the astronomers sure seem happy.
10 billion is a screaming bargain.
Compared to war for example.
 
Given that it's working so flawlessly, I think it was well worth it.

There was a chance though that some moving part might have malfunctioned in a way that crippled the whole mission, which would have been very unfortunate. If that had happened, it would have been hard to argue that it was worth it.

10 billion is a screaming bargain.
Compared to war for example.

Yeah, compared to war...certainly.

I'm not in any way saying it wasn't worth it.

Still I want as much money as possible be spent on developing inexpensive alternative energy solutions. Generation IV Nuclear power, perovskite solar, tidal energy, better electricity/energy storage etc etc etc. We solve that problem and in the future we can do science for the sake of science.

Cheap energy solves a lot of other problems.
 
Yeah, compared to war...certainly.

I'm not in any way saying it wasn't worth it.

Still I want as much money as possible be spent on developing inexpensive alternative energy solutions. Generation IV Nuclear power, perovskite solar, tidal energy, better electricity/energy storage etc etc etc. We solve that problem and in the future we can do science for the sake of science.

Cheap energy solves a lot of other problems.

Overall I agree with your sentiment, but the JWST actually has not cost all that much. The current cost is estimated at $US 9.7 billion. But that spans a very long time, from the project's start in 1998 to the end of its proposed 5 year mission in 2027—and barring unforseen problems it could well operate for 10, 15, or even 20 years. Even assuming only a 5 year mission, that's $9.7 billion over 29 years, or a "mere" $803 million a year.

There are currently 330 million people in the US, so the cost comes to $2.45 per US citizen each year. When was the last time you balked at paying $NZ 4.00 for something?

These numbers, of course, are only an approximation. The value of the US dollar and the US population have both changed over the past 24 years. A more detailed calculation would take into account that fact.

But overall, it's not that expensive. The US has a huge economy, and one of the nice things about it is being able to diversify spending among a lot of different goals.

By way of comparison, one source indicates it costs an automobile company $400 million over four years to develop a new car model, and that was in 2010! That would be about $522 million today, or $130 million a year. Ergo, 1 JWST = 6.2 new car models every year. :)
 
What's amazing to me is just how gaga astrophysicists and astronomers have been. Seriously, these images are nothing short of stunning to them.

To do their job they need data. And having a tidal wave of it come in with unprecedented range and clarity pretty much guarantees that some of those fortunate to be working in the field at this moment have a chance at making some historic discoveries.

To us these are pictures. To them each pixel represents layers of data.
 
Yeah, compared to war...certainly.

I'm not in any way saying it wasn't worth it.

Still I want as much money as possible be spent on developing inexpensive alternative energy solutions. Generation IV Nuclear power, perovskite solar, tidal energy, better electricity/energy storage etc etc etc. We solve that problem and in the future we can do science for the sake of science.

Cheap energy solves a lot of other problems.


There will always be more practical applications for government funds than space exploration. Always.

I say, take it when you can get it. As mentioned, this isn't exactly breaking the bank in the grand scheme.
 
Last edited:
There will always be more practical applications for government funds than space exploration. Always.

I say, take it when you can get it. As mentioned, this isn't exactly breaking the bank in the grand scheme.

Yup. The cost of JWST was US$10 billion over 11 years. That is 1.25% (or to put it another way, 2 Days, 4 Hours and 34 minutes) of the US military budget for 2021
 
Last edited:
Yup. The cost of JWST was US$10 billion over 11 years. That is 1.25% (or to put it another way, 2 Days, 4 Hours and 34 minutes) of the US military budget for 2021
And the Iraq war that took place say 1/3rd through the Webb program is commonly quoted at 5 trillion.

That then is 500 Webbs.

Which enterprise would be more admired by these inter universal's we are seeking?
 
We can all come up with far more wasteful uses of money than JWST. I also wouldn't describe JWST a waste.

It's not the cost in dollars per se that concerns me. It's the opportunity cost. It's having our best minds exploring the universe when they should be saving the planet. But obviously the same thing could be said about developing weapon systems, making video games.
 

Back
Top Bottom