A group of galaxies called "Stephan's Quintet" was featured in the opening scene of the Christmas movie "It's A Wonderful Life" (1946), where angels were speaking from. Left is from the movie, right is from the James Webb Space Telescope.Swimming_Drawer_7733 t1_j1o6fek wrote
Did the bright star sitting centre-bottom merge with the rectangle cluster to it's left over that space of time then?
dobie1kenobi t1_j1psbv2 wrote
I’m no astronomer, but I’ve seen this movie at least 40 times. That star is Clarence Odbody, Angel 2nd class. It zooms in from left to right when Joseph calls for him, and blinks when he talks. It’s a special effect from 1946, and I highly doubt it represents a real celestial body ;)
i_stole_your_swole t1_j1ppk7e wrote
I actually think that star doesn't exist. It doesn't show in amateur photographs, either. Perhaps it was added as part of the artistic process of making the film?
Yoprobro13 OP t1_j1o74wv wrote
No, it's likely a star that James Webb was able to pierce through so that's why it isn't there on the modern image
Edit: sorry I might be wrong, it may been added in for the movie
Astrofishisist t1_j1q0a1q wrote
Just to explain a little, JWST isn’t capable of ‘piercing through’ any stars. However some stars do emit less light in infrared than other bandwidths depending on their temperatures so some stars can show up as dimmer.
The main thing JWST can look through is interstellar dust clouds as they are mainly opaque in the optical wavelength.
Although I think in this case it was just one of the angels from the film so an added effect
wowsosquare t1_j1qej6d wrote
EXTREMELY STUPID QUESTION PHRASED AS A STATEMENT FOLLOWS sorry
Since all these pictures are of the infrared spectrum... aren't they kind of fake in a meaningful way? As in there's no way you could see this, it's just a CGI of a bunch of heat data points? Isn't this all essentially false color images cooked up in a computer and made to look cool?
JiminyDickish t1_j1qhpbz wrote
Why is your extremely limited human vision any more valid than the vision of a photosensor?
Gushinggrannies4u t1_j1rxgkz wrote
It’s not, but the representation at the end is indeed fake - the colors are simulated.
JiminyDickish t1_j1s1xzt wrote
Could say the same thing about our brain’s interpretation of colors.
Gushinggrannies4u t1_j1s2wqj wrote
No, because that’s how we define color.
JiminyDickish t1_j1se6er wrote
Where it’s our brain or a machine, or a combination of both, it’s still a system doing an arbitrary interpretation. Theoretically there could be something in the universe that perceives it the same as we perceive this false color image.
Whichever image represents more data is technically more correct.
[deleted] t1_j1t8ufr wrote
[removed]
wowsosquare t1_j1qmjwp wrote
OK ROBOT BOY sorry if I'm microagressing against your silicon based buddies!
JiminyDickish t1_j1qv7nc wrote
It’s ok we’ll assimilate you last
wowsosquare t1_j1r9f37 wrote
Hmmm... maybe. How's the user experience?
[deleted] t1_j1s47a3 wrote
[removed]
Astrofishisist t1_j1qgx2d wrote
I wouldn’t call them fake, but you’re right in saying that we wouldn’t see them in the same way. It’s not that they’re not visible, but they just look different to us as we see optical light.
For a quick example you can look at a comparison between JWST and Hubble of these galaxies. The Hubble image is FAR closer to what we’d see with our eyes as it’s coloured according to the optical light that’s received. JWST has more false colour as it’s assigning different parts of the IR spectrum their own colours, but you can still see they look almost the same, it’s just that some parts of the image (the dusty bits in the Hubble optical pic) are almost transparent in JWST’s IR.
Even in optical though there’s some inaccuracy. For some telescopes the colour comes from ‘filters’ which tend to single out certain elements and assign them a colour. This isn’t always accurate to real life, but it just adds to the flair of a lot of images.
I 100% would not call them fake though. Infrared light is just as valid as optical light, it’s just that our own eyes can’t detect it. There’s no ‘fake CGI’ involved it’s just that the telescope is capable of seeing more light than our own eyes are capable of.
Just to reiterate infrared light isn’t just looking at how ‘hot’ these space objects are, it is actually the same exact type of light that we can see, just a different amount of energy. It’s like how dogs can hear higher pitched noises than humans can hear; it’s still sound, but our ears aren’t able to pick it up.
wowsosquare t1_j1qmb7q wrote
YOU are the best thanks for the perfect explanation!
I'd like to ask another question in the form of an ill informed statement
>infrared light isn’t just looking at how ‘hot’ these space objects are
Isn't it though? I mean I suppose an we could say that in the visible spectrum, we are looking at how bright things are (amplitude), but also what color they are...so in the IR we are looking at how hot things are (amplitude/ brightness), but also which frequency (color) they are emitting. And so the false color added by computer processing is assigned based on something like higher frequency IR = closer to blue, and lower frequency IR= closer to red?
Harbulary-Batteries t1_j1qw375 wrote
Heat is not the same as infrared light - heat can be emitted along a wide variety of wavelengths. We’re just looking at wavelengths and amplitudes on a different part of the spectrum.
kvetcha-rdt t1_j1roiko wrote
this is basically it. these telescopes are 'seeing' in wavelengths the human eye cannot detect - these images are basically just 'frequency adjusted' for our vision. It's a bit like night-vision goggles.
NeighborhoodParty982 t1_j1r5zi5 wrote
It's more like putting a warm or cool filter on a photograph to shift the colors more blue or red.
Yoprobro13 OP t1_j1qtcvu wrote
Ya it was added in, my bad
Swimming_Drawer_7733 t1_j1o8j6s wrote
Cool thanks for answering. To witness something like this is probably one of the most fascinating feats mankind has managed. It's a shame people have to fight so much instead of going full throttle on space exploration.
Peeled_Balloon t1_j1pnvsj wrote
Can you explain what pierce through means?
danteheehaw t1_j1pw1he wrote
Look past it so it isn't in the way of the image.
SwiftSnips t1_j1q19rr wrote
Not possible to see through a star, even for JWST.
SwiftSnips t1_j1q1ljt wrote
Since JWST cant see through stars, its more likely that star is behind the bottom left galaxy in this picture if it exists at all. They do appear to be in slightly different positions so its possible.
starsnpixel t1_j1prpun wrote
What do you mean by that? JWST doesn't "pierce through" stars.
Yoprobro13 OP t1_j1qtojc wrote
It uses a different spectrum of light to see objects farther away in better detail so the star in front may appear a lot fainter
starsnpixel t1_j1tlums wrote
That's true. It sounded like you mean that some stars become invisible with JWST which they don't.
GeekDNA0918 t1_j1rqf17 wrote
I came here to ask a similar question, mine was. Did that super nova fade out in this time span? But the answers to your question answered mine.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments