APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by AVAO » Tue May 31, 2022 6:40 pm

Knistian wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:33 pm Regarding the resolution of the engineering-picture from JWST, where several think it's low: It has to do with wave-length. It's unfair to compare a picture taken in the UV-Visible range(where Hubbel opperates), and compare it directly with an image taken in the deeep part of the IR. The diameter of JWST is ca. 2.3 of Hubbel, so wavelengths 2.3 times as long as visible would be at the same resolution (with teoretical best acheivable resulution from both). The Webb has acheived to get a resolution at the wavelength used in the image, that is not limited by missalignement by the optics, but by fundamental limitations given by the diameter of the primaty mirror.
Here is a 1:1 comparison between the latest image from WEBB (2MASS J05230878-6925361) in the LMC and the identically sized section of 30 Doradus / RMC 136 also in the LMC. The center HST image in the bottom row is Near-IR/WFC3, while the Spitzer image is Mid-IR.

Image
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/521 ... 1704_k.jpg
original: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/521 ... 03_o_d.jpg


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/521 ... c28e_k.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/521 ... d7b3_k.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/521 ... b9db_k.jpg


Image Comparison: Jac Berne (flickr)

Original image sources:
HST Credit: NASA, ESA, and Z. Levay (STScI) https://esahubble.org/images/opo0932e
JWST Credit: NASA/ESA/CSA/STScI https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/05/09/ ... r-science/
SST Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/M. Meixner (STScI) & the SAGE Legacy Team http://legacy.spitzer.caltech.edu/image ... e-Infrared

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by AVAO » Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:53 pm

Knistian wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:33 pm
AVAO wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:34 pm I'm a bit surprised that the quality isn't better than Hubble when comparing the resolution of details to the nearest Hubble object. The third image in the series shows the nearby Cat's Eye Nebula overlaid at the same size. But of course, the process of optimizing the instruments is not yet complete.
...

Regarding the resolution of the engineering-picture from JWST, where several think it's low: It has to do with wave-length. It's unfair to compare a picture taken in the UV-Visible range(where Hubbel opperates), and compare it directly with an image taken in the deeep part of the IR. The diameter of JWST is ca. 2.3 of Hubbel, so wavelengths 2.3 times as long as visible would be at the same resolution (with teoretical best acheivable resulution from both). The Webb has acheived to get a resolution at the wavelength used in the image, that is not limited by missalignement by the optics, but by fundamental limitations given by the diameter of the primaty mirror.
Thank's - That's right!
This is a very important consideration, which should definitely be taken into account in such a comparison.

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by Knistian » Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:33 pm

AVAO wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:34 pm I'm a bit surprised that the quality isn't better than Hubble when comparing the resolution of details to the nearest Hubble object. The third image in the series shows the nearby Cat's Eye Nebula overlaid at the same size. But of course, the process of optimizing the instruments is not yet complete.

Image
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/519 ... 2763_k.jpg
https://sky.esa.int/?target=268.9184271 ... ue&lang=en
Image
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/519 ... 412c_k.jpg
Image
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/519 ... fc11_k.jpg
Jac Berne (flickr)
Regarding the resolution of the engineering-picture from JWST, where several think it's low: It has to do with wave-length. It's unfair to compare a picture taken in the UV-Visible range(where Hubbel opperates), and compare it directly with an image taken in the deeep part of the IR. The diameter of JWST is ca. 2.3 of Hubbel, so wavelengths 2.3 times as long as visible would be at the same resolution (with teoretical best acheivable resulution from both). The Webb has acheived to get a resolution at the wavelength used in the image, that is not limited by missalignement by the optics, but by fundamental limitations given by the diameter of the primaty mirror.

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by johnnydeep » Fri Mar 25, 2022 3:36 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 4:40 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 4:05 pm So, what explains the 8 diffraction spikes we see in this image? There are the six large equal spaced ones, which I assume are due to the hexagonal mirror segments, but there are also two small horizontal ones. Or are those not diffraction spikes at all and just "processing artifacts" as I thought might be being hinted at in some of the posts above? Also, where are the diffraction spikes caused by the three secondary mirror support struts?

Also, I notice that the diffraction spikes exhibit some striated complexity - what's causing that?
The secondary mirror is supported by two struts that are aligned with the hexagonal mirror vertices, and therefore their diffraction spikes overlap those from the mirrors themselves. The upper support strut, however, is aligned with the mirror edges and its diffraction pattern is seen in the much less prominent horizontal spikes.

Not sure about the striation. Might be related to the massive overexposure of this image and the effects of the internal mirror edges. Might try playing around with the math a little later.

UPDATE: Here's the aperture pattern (mirror segments and support struts), and the Fourier transform of that pattern, which is basically what the diffraction pattern is. (Zoom in for a better view.)
_
JWST_optics_fourier.jpg
Wow, that is very cool. So you "merely" applied some sort of Fourier transform image processing algorithm to the mirror and strut and that magically produced the diffraction pattern we see?!

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by Chris Peterson » Sun Mar 20, 2022 4:40 pm

johnnydeep wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 4:05 pm So, what explains the 8 diffraction spikes we see in this image? There are the six large equal spaced ones, which I assume are due to the hexagonal mirror segments, but there are also two small horizontal ones. Or are those not diffraction spikes at all and just "processing artifacts" as I thought might be being hinted at in some of the posts above? Also, where are the diffraction spikes caused by the three secondary mirror support struts?

Also, I notice that the diffraction spikes exhibit some striated complexity - what's causing that?
The secondary mirror is supported by two struts that are aligned with the hexagonal mirror vertices, and therefore their diffraction spikes overlap those from the mirrors themselves. The upper support strut, however, is aligned with the mirror edges and its diffraction pattern is seen in the much less prominent horizontal spikes.

Not sure about the striation. Might be related to the massive overexposure of this image and the effects of the internal mirror edges. Might try playing around with the math a little later.

UPDATE: Here's the aperture pattern (mirror segments and support struts), and the Fourier transform of that pattern, which is basically what the diffraction pattern is. (Zoom in for a better view.)
_
JWST_optics_fourier.jpg

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by johnnydeep » Sun Mar 20, 2022 4:05 pm

So, what explains the 8 diffraction spikes we see in this image? There are the six large equal spaced ones, which I assume are due to the hexagonal mirror segments, but there are also two small horizontal ones. Or are those not diffraction spikes at all and just "processing artifacts" as I thought might be being hinted at in some of the posts above? Also, where are the diffraction spikes caused by the three secondary mirror support struts?

Also, I notice that the diffraction spikes exhibit some striated complexity - what's causing that?
Attachments
jwst diffraction spike complexity.JPG

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by JohnD » Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:01 am

Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 2:26 pm
JohnD wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 2:17 pm The blurb for this APoD says, "The resulting image taken by Webb's NIRcam demonstrates their precise alignment is the best physics will allow."
The link in that sentence takes you to a previous APoD that describes "adaptive optics" on an Earthbound telescope, that is just not relevant for the Webb, out in Space!
Actually, it is very relevant. The JWST uses the same sorts of adaptive optics found on ground-based telescopes. That is, a closed-loop system that performs wavefront analysis and dynamically adjusts the position of optics in the system to achieve the highest performance. This requires faster corrections on Earth because of the atmosphere, but the approach is substantially the same, regardless of the actual sources of wavefront errors.
Thank you, Chris! I didn't appreciate how similar they were (and the blurb must be too snort to explain it)
John

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by AVAO » Sat Mar 19, 2022 8:22 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:45 pm
Ann wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:29 pm
AVAO wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:34 pm I'm a bit surprised that the quality isn't better than Hubble when comparing the resolution of details to the nearest Hubble object. The third image in the series shows the nearby Cat's Eye Nebula overlaid at the same size. But of course, the process of optimizing the instruments is not yet complete.
I thought the same, and I was unimpressed. But like you said, the process of optimizing the instruments is indeed not yet complete.
Ann
You're being fooled by the fact that most of the objects in the image are substantially saturated, which hides any detail. Look at the galaxies that are dim enough to not saturate. They show much finer detail than we see in the overlaid nebula. This image is already higher resolution than HST can produce.
_
51947342296_b9a8bbfc11_kx2.jpg
I agree with you, Chris.

About 500 galaxies can be seen in the image. Many of them would probably not be identifiable as such with Hubble, or would not be recognizable with so many details in the outer edge areas.

...I think it will be exciting to see how the JWST compares to previous HST targets.

Thanks for your detailed comments.
Jac

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by Chris Peterson » Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:45 pm

Ann wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:29 pm
AVAO wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:34 pm I'm a bit surprised that the quality isn't better than Hubble when comparing the resolution of details to the nearest Hubble object. The third image in the series shows the nearby Cat's Eye Nebula overlaid at the same size. But of course, the process of optimizing the instruments is not yet complete.

Image
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/519 ... 2763_k.jpg
https://sky.esa.int/?target=268.9184271 ... ue&lang=en
Image
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/519 ... 412c_k.jpg
Image
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/519 ... fc11_k.jpg
Jac Berne (flickr)
I thought the same, and I was unimpressed. But like you said, the process of optimizing the instruments is indeed not yet complete.

Ann
You're being fooled by the fact that most of the objects in the image are substantially saturated, which hides any detail. Look at the galaxies that are dim enough to not saturate. They show much finer detail than we see in the overlaid nebula. This image is already higher resolution than HST can produce.
_
51947342296_b9a8bbfc11_kx2.jpg

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by Ann » Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:29 pm

AVAO wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:34 pm I'm a bit surprised that the quality isn't better than Hubble when comparing the resolution of details to the nearest Hubble object. The third image in the series shows the nearby Cat's Eye Nebula overlaid at the same size. But of course, the process of optimizing the instruments is not yet complete.

Image
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/519 ... 2763_k.jpg
https://sky.esa.int/?target=268.9184271 ... ue&lang=en
Image
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/519 ... 412c_k.jpg
Image
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/519 ... fc11_k.jpg
Jac Berne (flickr)
I thought the same, and I was unimpressed. But like you said, the process of optimizing the instruments is indeed not yet complete.

Ann

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by Chris Peterson » Sat Mar 19, 2022 5:49 pm

Ace Goodwin wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 5:39 pm Those are some nasty diffraction spikes, and I don't believe getting used to them is the right answer, so... I would instead like to propose using new machine learning methods to eliminate them (and perhaps even the Airy disk as well) from images.
It goes something like this:
Create a synthetic data set by computationally simulating point source stars as viewed through an optical system (the intricacies of the point spread function tax my very limited math skills far beyond the breaking point sadly). Strictly speaking with some planning and the right equipment one could use a real point source such as a laser and a real optical system to achieve a training set tuned specifically to that optical system as well.
Using the original points image as the target and the simulated 'scope image as input, train a conv U-net or GAN (or any other relevant model).
If it's done right it should be able to essentially 'learn' to correctly reintegrate light from the spike regions back into the point sources from which they came. Then it's just a matter of doing model inference on real images.
I might be naive in thinking this can be done, but ml has already accomplished many amazing and "impossible" things, so I would love to take a crack at it (or even see someone far smarter than I do it). Any help with the math side of generating the data set would be appreciated.
The spikes don't really pose a problem, since the targets this telescope is going for aren't nearby stars, but distant, dim objects for which their diffraction artifacts will be below the camera noise floor.

And to the extent that diffraction spikes are problematic, it's because they might be masking something behind them. And effectively, that's not recoverable signal.

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by Ace Goodwin » Sat Mar 19, 2022 5:39 pm

Those are some nasty diffraction spikes, and I don't believe getting used to them is the right answer, so... I would instead like to propose using new machine learning methods to eliminate them (and perhaps even the Airy disk as well) from images.
It goes something like this:
Create a synthetic data set by computationally simulating point source stars as viewed through an optical system (the intricacies of the point spread function tax my very limited math skills far beyond the breaking point sadly). Strictly speaking with some planning and the right equipment one could use a real point source such as a laser and a real optical system to achieve a training set tuned specifically to that optical system as well.
Using the original points image as the target and the simulated 'scope image as input, train a conv U-net or GAN (or any other relevant model).
If it's done right it should be able to essentially 'learn' to correctly reintegrate light from the spike regions back into the point sources from which they came. Then it's just a matter of doing model inference on real images.
I might be naive in thinking this can be done, but ml has already accomplished many amazing and "impossible" things, so I would love to take a crack at it (or even see someone far smarter than I do it). Any help with the math side of generating the data set would be appreciated.

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by Chris Peterson » Sat Mar 19, 2022 5:18 pm

AVAO wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:34 pm I'm a bit surprised that the quality isn't better than Hubble when comparing the resolution of details to the nearest Hubble object. The third image in the series shows the nearby Cat's Eye Nebula overlaid at the same size. But of course, the process of optimizing the instruments is not yet complete.
This image is reportedly diffraction limited.

It appears to me that it shows more detail than the overlaid Hubble object.

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by AVAO » Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:34 pm

I'm a bit surprised that the quality isn't better than Hubble when comparing the resolution of details to the nearest Hubble object. The third image in the series shows the nearby Cat's Eye Nebula overlaid at the same size. But of course, the process of optimizing the instruments is not yet complete.

Image
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/519 ... 2763_k.jpg
https://sky.esa.int/?target=268.9184271 ... ue&lang=en
Image
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/519 ... 412c_k.jpg
Image
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/519 ... fc11_k.jpg
Jac Berne (flickr)

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by Chris Peterson » Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:14 pm

Ann wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:08 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:37 pm
Ann wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 5:32 am
Thanks, alter-ego. However, I noticed that there was no spectral class given for 2MASS J17554042+6551277. As for the fluxes, the star appears to be ~1 magnitude brighter in V than in B, and it gets ever brighter at still longer wavelengths, but not enormously so. I would guess that this is a K-type star.
If you're feeling more ambitious, you can use a stellar flux calibration table (e.g. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/%7Eemamaje ... s_Teff.txt) and find the best match given ratios of different spectral bands. Just compute the ratios shown in the table using the SIMBAD data, and then look for the row that most closely matches those. You can probably narrow it down to stellar subclass.
Very interesting, Chris. Many of the rations suggest that 2MASS J17554042+6551277 is a star of spectral class K3V or K4V. However, that is impossible, since the star is 13 times brighter than the Sun in visual (V) light. No K3 or K4 dwarf star can do that. Therefore, 2MASS J17554042+6551277 must be a giant. It is clearly a very modest giant of, perhaps, spectral class K0III.
Precise spectral class is determined spectroscopically, not by looking at flux ratios. One reason for that is that surface gravity matters, and the surface gravity impacts the different fluxes. So this table (and most like it) are developed for "dwarf" stars (which include stars even larger than the Sun). Giants behave differently.

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by Ann » Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:08 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:37 pm
Ann wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 5:32 am
alter-ego wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:41 am mv = 10.95
Clicking the 2MASS J17554042+6551277 link will take you to the SIMBAD data page for that star. There are several magnitudes for different spectral bands.
Thanks, alter-ego. However, I noticed that there was no spectral class given for 2MASS J17554042+6551277. As for the fluxes, the star appears to be ~1 magnitude brighter in V than in B, and it gets ever brighter at still longer wavelengths, but not enormously so. I would guess that this is a K-type star.
If you're feeling more ambitious, you can use a stellar flux calibration table (e.g. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/%7Eemamaje ... s_Teff.txt) and find the best match given ratios of different spectral bands. Just compute the ratios shown in the table using the SIMBAD data, and then look for the row that most closely matches those. You can probably narrow it down to stellar subclass.
Very interesting, Chris. Many of the rations suggest that 2MASS J17554042+6551277 is a star of spectral class K3V or K4V. However, that is impossible, since the star is 13 times brighter than the Sun in visual (V) light. No K3 or K4 dwarf star can do that. Therefore, 2MASS J17554042+6551277 must be a giant. It is clearly a very modest giant of, perhaps, spectral class K0III.

Thanks again!

Ann

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by n8zrj » Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:35 pm

I noticed a string of dots at the lower right edge, about the 4 o'clock position. Is this an image artifact or moving object?

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by E Fish » Sat Mar 19, 2022 2:37 pm

I had a friend ask me about the background galaxies on the left side of the image. She was wondering if there was gravitational lensing happening there. I said I don't think so because I didn't think there was any distortion like I'd expect from lensing. Am I right? I know there are plenty of people here way more experienced than I am. :)

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by Chris Peterson » Sat Mar 19, 2022 2:36 pm

skildude wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:48 pm Is it me or is there a few false false diffraction lines on the photo? Say to the left of the star. Perhaps they took out stars that would mar the image. However, the diffraction lines on the bottom right clearly are not aligned. I also see that a couple of galaxies have lines moving away from the center of the image as well.
There are clearly some processing artifacts in this image that suggest it isn't just a cleaned up raw image. It looks to have been composited from several images in some way, or processed using masks. But without the processing details, we can't say. I don't think JWST has a raw image archive running yet (like with the HST), so there's no original data to evaluate.

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by Chris Peterson » Sat Mar 19, 2022 2:26 pm

JohnD wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 2:17 pm The blurb for this APoD says, "The resulting image taken by Webb's NIRcam demonstrates their precise alignment is the best physics will allow."
The link in that sentence takes you to a previous APoD that describes "adaptive optics" on an Earthbound telescope, that is just not relevant for the Webb, out in Space!
Actually, it is very relevant. The JWST uses the same sorts of adaptive optics found on ground-based telescopes. That is, a closed-loop system that performs wavefront analysis and dynamically adjusts the position of optics in the system to achieve the highest performance. This requires faster corrections on Earth because of the atmosphere, but the approach is substantially the same, regardless of the actual sources of wavefront errors.

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by JohnD » Sat Mar 19, 2022 2:17 pm

The blurb for this APoD says, "The resulting image taken by Webb's NIRcam demonstrates their precise alignment is the best physics will allow."
The link in that sentence takes you to a previous APoD that describes "adaptive optics" on an Earthbound telescope, that is just not relevant for the Webb, out in Space!
However, Webb's main mirrors are now aligned as well as possible, to the point of synchronising wavelengths! But as Scott Acton says in this video from Nasa, they still have to ensure that all the instruments onboard are correctly aligned with the telescope, before it can be declared perfect! What an extraordinary achievement that will be!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiGx8xv6xjE&t=15s

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by skildude » Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:48 pm

Is it me or is there a few false false diffraction lines on the photo? Say to the left of the star. Perhaps they took out stars that would mar the image. However, the diffraction lines on the bottom right clearly are not aligned. I also see that a couple of galaxies have lines moving away from the center of the image as well.

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by Chris Peterson » Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:37 pm

Ann wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 5:32 am
alter-ego wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:41 am mv = 10.95
Clicking the 2MASS J17554042+6551277 link will take you to the SIMBAD data page for that star. There are several magnitudes for different spectral bands.
Thanks, alter-ego. However, I noticed that there was no spectral class given for 2MASS J17554042+6551277. As for the fluxes, the star appears to be ~1 magnitude brighter in V than in B, and it gets ever brighter at still longer wavelengths, but not enormously so. I would guess that this is a K-type star.
If you're feeling more ambitious, you can use a stellar flux calibration table (e.g. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/%7Eemamaje ... s_Teff.txt) and find the best match given ratios of different spectral bands. Just compute the ratios shown in the table using the SIMBAD data, and then look for the row that most closely matches those. You can probably narrow it down to stellar subclass.

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by bls0326 » Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:18 pm

[quote=alter-ego post_

Clicking the 2MASS J17554042+6551277 link will take you to the SIMBAD data page for that star. There are several magnitudes for different spectral bands.
[/quote]

The SIMBAD data page does not show info for this star 2MASS J17554042+6551277. But at the bottom left of that page there is a link to a data set VizieR for this star. http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/Vizi ... %2b6551277

This has various magnitude numbers, but I am not familiar with the terminology.
Brian

Re: APOD: 2MASS J17554042+6551277 (2022 Mar 19)

by orin stepanek » Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:06 pm

telescope_alignment_evaluation_image_labeled1024.jpg
Tanfastic; er, Fantastic! 8-) I think we will want to build even bigger
telescopes so we can bring those distant galaxies even closer! :mrgreen:

Top