Connect with us

Space

Seven surprising discoveries about the planet Mercury

Published

on

Mercury
Only two robotic missions made it to Mercury, but those missions were crucial in disproving many false hypotheses about this hot world.

Seven surprising discoveries about the planet Mercury

Mercury, which is very close to the Sun, seems to be a dead planet. Scientists used to think that it was just a lump of rock close to the Sun and a hostile world: the day and night side of the planet witnessed a temperature difference of nearly 600 degrees Celsius.

But now it has been proven that Mercury is a world of contradictions and a dynamic planet that hides unexpected surprises. A thin atmosphere, a magnetic field, and a reservoir of volatile compounds still exist on this planet, and scientists often associate these features with planets that are larger and farther from the Sun.

“We expected Mercury to be a hot, baked object,” says Deborah Domingo, a senior scientist at the Institute for Planetary Sciences. He says the observations of the last few decades have changed the scientists’ belief about this planet. Evidence shows that Mercury is not just a dry mass of rock. One of the wonders of this planet is that it still has bubbles of ice.

So far, only two missions have reached Mercury. The third mission is Bepi Colombo (a joint mission of the European Space Agency and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency), which is on its way and will reach its destination in late 2025.

While the few ground-based observations and space missions have not yielded much knowledge, they have helped clear up many early misunderstandings about Mercury’s mysteries. In the following, we mention some of the most amazing discoveries that have been made about Mercury.

Mercury has a metallic core

The core of Mercury

Mercury may be small, but it is heavy. Although the diameter of Mercury is not much larger than the diameter of the Moon, its mass is more than four times that of the Moon. After Earth, Mercury is the densest planet in the solar system. The planet’s high density comes from the fact that it has a large iron core that makes up about 60% of the planet’s mass. In contrast, the Earth’s core contains only about 15% of the planet by volume.

Read more: Why there is no gaseous moon in the solar system?

Scientists have proposed various theories about the unusual internal structure of Mercury. They believe that the outer layer of early Mercury may have been evaporated by the Sun or scattered by the solar wind. Another theory says that perhaps due to the impact of a large object on Mercury, most of its softer outer layers were destroyed and its harder core remained. Since some of the mantle and crust still remain, the collision may have occurred in some way that preserved some of Mercury’s original layers.

Turbulence inside Mercury creates a magnetic field

Mercury's magnetic fieldSmall magnetic field signals from the surface of Mercury are evidence of a global magnetic field in its early history that is still present.

The first mission to Mercury, Mariner 10, was carried out in 1973 and showed that the planet has a magnetic field. This discovery came as a surprise to the scientific community, who had assumed that such a small planet would quickly cool and harden and lack a magnetic field. The presence of the magnetosphere indicates that part of Mercury’s core is still churning.

Mercury’s magnetic field is almost 100 times weaker than Earth’s magnetic field. The weak magnetic activity means that the planet is at the end of its evolution to become a dead planet like Mars.

In the 2010s, the second Mercury mission showed that the planet’s magnetic field was unbalanced. The magnetic south pole is not located on the geographic south pole but is buried about a fifth of the way inside the planet.

Antonio Genova, an aerospace engineer who studies geodesy and geophysics at Rome’s Sapienza University, says the magnetic field offers insights into the planet’s interior and its history, showing how its internal rotation has slowed over billions of years.

Mercury has a thin atmosphere

The trail of MercuryThe bright trail of Mercury

Mercury has a thin atmosphere that cannot be considered a real atmosphere. Instead, scientists call this thin layer of gas the exosphere, where the gas is so thin that nothing like atmospheric pressure can be measured.

Astronomers in the 1980s detected atomic sodium, potassium, and calcium in Mercury’s exosphere, metals with strong emission signals visible from Earth with telescopes. These metallic elements are not usually considered as gases, but they make their way into the planet’s sky as a result of the impact of solar particles and meteorites on the surface of the planet.

Solar winds penetrate the resulting exosphere, and the interaction between gases and particles ejected from the Sun creates a 24 million km long glowing trail behind Mercury. The trail seasonally shortens and lengthens depending on the proximity of Mercury to the Sun. If you stand on Mercury and look up at the right time of year, Mercury’s long trail will appear as an orange glow in the sky.

There is ice at the poles of Mercury

Pole of MercuryMercury seems to have ice at its poles that is protected from solar radiation.

A planet so close to the Sun shouldn’t have water or ice, or so researchers thought. But in the 1990s, scientists at Goldstone in California and the Arecibo Radio Telescope in Puerto Rico directed a stream of radar signals toward Mercury. They were amazed to see two bright reflective spots at the poles, which were probably ice deposits.

In 2012, the MESSENGER spacecraft confirmed that the ice in the north pole of Mercury is frozen water. Surface laser measurements identified carbon-rich material on the surface that insulates the underlying ice.

Mercury has been able to retain its water because ice-containing bubbles lie beneath its permanent shadows. This planet rotates completely vertically in relation to its orbit around the sun; This means that impact craters near the poles have interiors that never see the light of day. The temperature inside these gaps is minus 170 degrees Celsius, which is close to the temperature at which nitrogen gas liquefies. “It’s cold enough there for the ice to be stable over geological timescales,” says Sean Solomon, a former planetary scientist at Columbia University and principal investigator of the MESSENGER mission.

Like many other rocky planets, the water on Mercury probably came from asteroids that landed on land. This water is hidden inside the craters of Mercury, which has not changed since the early times.

On other terrestrial planets in the solar system, geological processes such as climate circulation have spread the ejected water across the planet. Mercury’s poles are probably the best source if scientists want to sample intact ancient ice in the solar system, Solomon says.

Mercury contains various volatile substances

Volatile elements of MercuryMercury’s crust is rich in relatively volatile elements such as potassium and sulfur.

Mercury again challenged scientists’ expectations when the MESSENGER spacecraft detected volatiles in the burning world of Mercury. Volatile substances are chemicals that can change state between solid and gas phases in a short temperature change.

Mercury has already been proven to contain water, but the MESSENGER mission identified other elements such as sulfur, potassium, and chlorine that evaporate easily at relatively high temperatures. These volatile substances are spread all over the surface of the planet.

Due to its size, Mercury has higher amounts of volatiles than other Earth-like planets in the solar system, which are farther from the Sun and therefore much colder. Where the volatiles come from and how Mercury has preserved them is still a matter of debate among scientists.

Some researchers think the volatiles came from beneath the surface in recent history, while others think chemicals from Mercury’s embryonic days remained on its surface.

The presence of volatiles on Mercury raises questions. For example, if the planets that are close to their stars have volatile materials, especially water, could these regions be habitable? According to Domingo, Mercury shows that planets close to the Sun should not be ignored.

Mercury has irregular depressions on its surface. Mariner 10 first revealed them in 1975. Messenger then recorded high-resolution images of these areas. The depressions range from a few meters to more than 1.6 kilometers in width, and their depth reaches 36 meters.

Scientists believe that the holes may have been created by the escape of volatile substances. Since an atmosphereless Mercury has no wind or rain to batter the Earth, surface features such as craters can form as a result of other processes, such as the leakage of volatiles from land into space.

Craters are relatively young formations, averaging about 100,000 years old compared to the four-billion-year-old impact craters on Mercury. Scientists think the holes are still forming. These holes have only been seen on Mercury. It seems that other objects in the solar system do not have such effects.

In recent years, scientists have also identified other structures on Mercury: irregular ridges that cover a large portion of its surface. Some researchers believe that these uneven terrains are caused by the turbulent flow of fugitives from the depths of the planet. Other scientists think the bumps were caused by the impact of an asteroid.

Mercury was once volcanically active

The surface of MercuryIn this composite image taken by the MESSENGER spacecraft of the surface of Mercury, two large impact craters (top and left of the image) appear to have filled in and formed flat plains.

Mercury’s topography provides clues that volcanoes once spewed lava onto the planet’s surface. The MESSENGER spacecraft clearly showed the bright plains scattered across the surface of Mercury. Lava accumulated on older craters and ridges flattened to form plains. Researchers think that an active volcano on Mercury became dormant between 1 billion and 3.5 billion years ago as the planet cooled and contracted, blocking magma escape routes.

Mercury also shows signs of explosive volcanic activity. Irregular pits several kilometers long and more than three kilometers deep point to ancient pyroclastic volcanoes that have destroyed themselves. Around the pits, there are sediments that, according to researchers, were released as a result of volcanic explosions. These types of volcanic explosions are probably caused by volatile substances underground. When these buried chemicals come to the surface, their volume increases. Finally, the increase in gas pressure causes the volcano to explode.

BPI Colombo scientists hope to learn more about where the volatiles on Mercury come from. Mapping volatiles on the planet’s surface provides clues about how they got there. The origin of volatile substances is one of the main topics of space exploration.

Space

Dark matter and ordinary matter can interact without gravity!

Published

on

By

dark matter
Dark matter and ordinary matter can interact without gravity! Dark matter, which has five times the mass of normal matter, helps hold galaxies together and explains the puzzling motions of stars. Now a new study has shown that these two substances can interact with each other without the presence of gravity.

Dark matter and ordinary matter can interact without gravity!

Why is dark matter associated with the adjective “dark”? Is it because it harbors some evil forces of the universe or hidden secrets that scientists don’t want us to know? No, it is not. Such fanciful assumptions may sound appealing to a conspiracy theorist, but they are far from the truth.

Dark matter is called dark because it does not interact with light. So when dark matter and light collide, they pass each other. This is also why scientists have not been able to detect dark matter until now; it does not react to light.

Although it has mass and mass creates gravity, this means that dark matter can interact with normal matter and vice versa. Such interactions are rare, and gravity is the only known force that causes these two forms of matter to interact.

However, a new study suggests that dark matter and ordinary matter interact in ways other than gravity.

If this theory is correct, it shows that our existing models of dark matter are somewhat wrong. In addition, it can lead to the development of new and better tools for the detection of dark matter.

Read more: There is more than one way for planets to be born

A new missing link between dark and ordinary matter

Dark matter is believed to have about five times the mass of normal matter in our universe, which helps hold galaxies together and explains some of the motions of stars that don’t make sense based on the presence of visible matter alone.

For example, one of the strongest lines of evidence for the existence of dark matter is the observation of rotation curves in galaxies, which show that stars at the outer edges of spiral galaxies rotate at rates similar to those near the center. These observations indicate the presence of an invisible mass.

Also, for their study, the researchers studied six ultra-dim dwarf (UFD) galaxies located near the Milky Way. However, in terms of their mass, these galaxies have fewer stars than they should. This means they are mostly made up of dark matter.

According to the researchers, if dark matter and normal matter interact only through gravity, the stars in these UFDs should be denser in the centers and more spread out toward the edges of the galaxies. However, if they interact in other ways, the star distribution looks different.

The authors of the study ran computer simulations to investigate both possibilities. When they tested this for all six ultra-dim dwarf (UFD) galaxies, they found that the distribution of stars was uniform, meaning that the stars were spread evenly across the galaxies.

This was in contrast to what is generally observed for gravitational interactions between dark matter and normal matter.

What causes this interaction?

The results of the simulations showed that gravity is not the only force that can make dark matter and normal matter interact. Such an interaction has never been observed before, and it could change our understanding of dark matter and dark energy.

However, this study has a major limitation. What caused the interaction between the two forms of matter is still a mystery. While the current study provides tantalizing hints of a novel interaction, its exact nature and underlying causes remain unknown. Hopefully, further research will clarify the details of such interactions.

This study was published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Continue Reading

Space

James Webb Space Telescope deepens cosmology’s biggest controversy

Published

on

By

James Webb Space Telescope
Despite the published data from the James Webb Telescope of the early universe, the question of the Hubble tension, or discrepancy in measurements of the cosmological constant, has not yet been resolved.

How the James Webb Space Telescope deepens cosmology’s biggest controversy

Summary of the article:

  • Almost a century ago, Edwin Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe and calculated the expansion rate or the cosmic constant.
  • Since Hubble, many groups have tried to measure the expansion rate of the universe. However, the values ​​they obtained differed from the theoretical predictions. This difference is called Hubble tension.
  • Scientists today use three methods to measure the expansion rate of the universe: Cephasian variable stars, TRGB red giant stars, and JAGB asymptotic giants.
  • However, the Hubble tension still exists, indicating that the methods for calculating the Hubble constant suffer from a systematic flaw.
  • Researchers hope to be able to use the James Webb telescope in the coming years to achieve more accurate measurements of the universe’s expansion rate and thus resolve the Hubble tension.

Almost a century ago, Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was getting bigger. However, today’s measurements of how fast the universe is expanding are contradictory. These discrepancies show that our understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete. On the other hand, everyone expected the sharp eyes of the James Webb telescope to bring us closer to the answer to the riddle; But a new analysis of the telescope’s long-awaited observations once again reflects inconsistent expansion rates from different types of data, while pointing to possible sources of error.

Two competing groups have led efforts to measure the rate of expansion of the universe, known as Hubble’s constant, or H0. A group led by Adam Reiss of Johns Hopkins University, relying on the known constituents of the universe and the governing equations, has consistently calculated the Hubble constant to be approximately 8 percent higher than the theory predicts the universe’s expansion rate. This discrepancy, known as the Hubble tension, indicates that the model of the cosmological theory may have missed some elements such as raw materials or effects that speed up the expansion of the universe. Such an element can be a clue to a more complete understanding of the world.

This spring, Reiss and his team published new measurements of the Hubble constant based on data from the James Webb Telescope and found a value consistent with their previous estimates. However, a rival group led by Wendy Friedman of the University of Chicago warns that more precise measurements are needed. The team’s measurements of the Hubble constant are closer to the theoretical estimate than Riess’ calculations, suggesting that the Hubble stress may not be real.

Since the commissioning of the James Webb Telescope in 2022, the astrophysical community has been waiting for Friedman’s multidimensional analysis based on telescope observations of three types of stars. The results are now as follows: the two-star types provide estimates of the Hubble constant that are in line with the theoretical prediction; While the results of the third star, which is the same type used by Reiss, are consistent with his team’s higher estimates of Hubble’s constant. According to Friedman, the fact that the results of the three methods are contradictory does not mean that there are unknown physical foundations, but that there are some systematic errors in the calculation methods.

Contradictory world

The difficult part of measuring cosmic expansion is measuring the distance of space objects. In 1912, American astronomer Henrietta Levitt first used pulsating stars known as Cephasian variables to calculate distances. These stars flicker at a rate proportional to their intrinsic luminosity. By understanding the luminosity or radiant power of a Cephasian variable, we can compare it with its apparent brightness or dimming to estimate its galaxy’s distance from us.

Edwin Hubble used Levitt’s method to measure the distances to a set of galaxies hosting the Cephasian variable, and in 1929 he noticed that the galaxies that are farther away from us are moving away faster. This finding meant the expansion of the universe. Hubble calculated the expansion rate to be a constant value of 500 km/s per megaparsec. In other words, two galaxies that are 1 megaparsec or approximately 3.2 million light years apart are moving away from each other at a speed of 500 km/s.

As progress was made in calibrating the relationship between the pulsation frequency of Cepheids and their luminosity, measurements of the Hubble constant improved. However, since the Cephasian variables are very bright, the whole approach used has limitations. Scientists need a new way to measure the distance of galaxies from each other in the infinite space.

In the 1970s, researchers used Cephasian variables to measure the distance to bright supernovae, and in this way they achieved more accurate measurements of the Hubble constant. At that time, as now, two research groups undertook the measurements, and using supernovae and Cephasian variable stars, they achieved contradictory values ​​of 50 km/s per megaparsec and 100 km/s per megaparsec. However, no agreement was reached and everything became completely bipolar.

Edwin Hubble next to the telescopeEdwin Hubble, the American astronomer who discovered the expansion of the universe, stands next to the Schmidt telescope at the Palomar Observatory in this photo from 1949.

The launch of the Hubble Space Telescope in 1990 gave astronomers a new and multi-layered view of the universe. Friedman led a multi-year observing campaign with Hubble, and in 2001 he and his colleagues estimated the expansion rate to be 72 km/s/Mpa with an uncertainty of at most 10%.

A Nobel laureate for the discovery of dark energy, Reiss got into the expansion game a few years later. In 2011, his group found the Hubble constant to be 73 with a three percent uncertainty. Soon after this, cosmologists excelled in another way. In 2013, they used Planck’s observations of light left over from the early universe to determine the exact shape and composition of the early universe.

In the next step, the researchers connected their findings to Einstein’s theory of general relativity and developed a theoretical model to predict the current state of the universe, up to approximately 14 billion years into the future. Based on these calculations, the universe should be expanding at an approximate rate of 67.4 km/s per megaparsec with an uncertainty of less than one percent.

Reese’s team measurement remained at 73, even with the improved accuracy. This higher value indicates that the galaxies today are moving away from each other at a faster rate than theoretically expected. This is how the Hubble tension was born. According to Reiss, today’s Hubble tension shows us that something is missing in the cosmological model.

The missing factor could be the first new element in the universe to be discovered since dark energy. Theorists still have doubts about the identity of this agent. Perhaps this force is some kind of repulsive energy that lasted for a short time in the early universe, or perhaps it is the primordial magnetic fields created during the Big Bang, or perhaps what is being missed is more about ourselves than the universe.

Ways of seeing

Some cosmologists, including Friedman, suspected that unknown errors were to blame for Hubble’s tension. For example, Cephasian variable stars are located in the disks of younger galaxies in regions full of stars, dust, and gas. Even with Hubble’s fine resolution, you don’t see a single Cephasian variable, according to George Afstatio, an astrophysicist at the University of Cambridge. Rather, you see it overlapping with other stars. This density of stars makes measurements of brightness difficult.

When the James Webb Telescope launches in 2021, Reiss and his colleagues will use its powerful infrared camera to peer into the crowded regions that host the Cephasian variables. They wanted to know whether the claims of Friedman and other researchers about the effect of the area’s crowding on the observations were correct.

James Webb telescope mirrorsThe 6.5-meter multi-section mirror of the James Webb Space Telescope at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. This mirror passed various test stages in 2017.

When the researchers compared the new numbers to distances calculated from Hubble data, they saw a surprising match. The latest results from the James Webb telescope confirmed the Hubble constant measured by the Hubble telescope a few years ago: 73 km/s/Mpa with a difference of one kilometer or so.

Concerned about crowding, Friedman turned to alternative stars that could serve as distance indicators. These stars are found in the outer reaches of galaxies and away from the crowd. One of those stars belongs to the group ” Red Giant Branch ” or TRGB for short. A red giant is an old star with a puffy atmosphere that shines brightly in the red light spectrum. As a red giant ages, it eventually burns helium in its core, and at this point, the star’s temperature and brightness suddenly decrease.

A typical galaxy has many red giants. If you plot the brightness of these stars against their temperature, you reach a point where the brightness drops off. The star population before this brightness drop is a good distance indicator; Because in each galaxy, such a population has a similar distribution of luminosity. By comparing the brightness of these star populations, astronomers can estimate their relative distances.

The Hubble tension shows that the standard model of the cosmos is missing something

Regardless of the method used, physicists must calculate the absolute distance of at least one galaxy as a reference point in order to calibrate the entire scale. Using TRGB as a distance index is more complicated than using Kyphousian variables. MacKinnon and colleagues used nine wavelength filters from the James Webb telescope to understand how brightness relates to their color.

Astronomers are also looking for a new indicator: carbon-rich stars that belong to a group known as the “Jay region asymptotic giant” (JAGB). These stars are far from the bright disk of the galaxy and emit a lot of infrared light. However, it was not possible to observe them at long distances until James Webb’s launch.

Friedman and his team have applied for observation time with the James Webb Space Telescope in order to observe TRGBs and JAGBs, along with more fixed spacing indices and Cephasian variables, in 11 galaxies.

The vanishing solution

On March 13, 2024, Friedman, Lee, and the rest of the team meet in Chicago to find out what they’ve been hiding from each other. Over the past months, they were divided into three groups, each tasked with measuring distances to 11 galaxies using one of three methods: Cephasian variable stars, TRGBs, and JAGBs.

These galaxies also host related types of supernovae, so their distances can calibrate the distances of supernovae in many more distant galaxies. The rate at which galaxies move away from us divided by their distance gives the value of the Hubble constant.

Wendy FriedmanWendy Friedman at the University of Chicago is trying to fit the James Webb Telescope observations into the Standard Cosmological Model.

Three groups of researchers calculated distance measures with a unique, random counterbalancing value added to the data. During the face-to-face session, they removed those values ​​and compared the results.

All three methods obtained similar distances with three percent uncertainty. Finally, the group calculated three values ​​of Hubble’s constant for each distance index. All values ​​were within the theoretical prediction range of 67.4. Therefore, Hubble’s tension seemed to be resolved. However, they ran into problems with further analysis to write the results.

The JAGB analysis was good, But the other two were wrong. The team found that there were large error bars in the TRGB measurements. They tried to minimize the errors by including more TRGBs; But when they started doing this, they found that the distance to the galaxies was less than they first thought. This change caused the value of Hubble’s constant to increase.

Friedman’s team also discovered an error in Cephaus’s analysis: in almost half of the pulsating stars, the term crowd was applied twice. Correcting this error increased the value of Hubble’s constant significantly. Hubble’s tension was revived.

Finally, after efforts to fix the errors, the researchers’ paper presents three distinct values ​​of Hubble’s constant. The JAGB measurement yielded a result of 67.96 km/s/megaparsec. The TRGB result was equal to 69.85 with similar error margins. Hubble’s constant was obtained at a higher value of 72.05 in the Kyphousian variable method. In this way, different hypotheses about the characteristics of these stars caused Hubble’s stress value to vary from 69 to 73.

By combining the aforementioned methods and uncertainties, the average Hubble stress value equal to 69.96 was obtained with an uncertainty of four percent. This margin of error overlaps with the theoretical prediction of the expansion rate of the universe, as well as the higher value of Tim Reiss.

Tensions and resolutions

The James Webb Space Telescope has provided methods for measuring the Hubble constant. The idea is simple: closer galaxies look more massive; Because you can make out some of their stars, while more distant galaxies have a more uniform appearance.

A method called gravitational convergence is more promising. A massive galaxy cluster acts like a magnifying glass, bending and magnifying the image of a background object, creating multiple images of the background object when its light takes different paths.

Brenda Fry, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, is leading a program to observe seven clusters with the James Webb Space Telescope. Looking at the first images they captured last year of the G165 cluster, Fry and his colleagues noticed three spots that were not previously seen in the images. These three points were actually separate images of a supernova that was located in the background of the aforementioned cluster.

After repeating the observation several times, the researchers calculated the difference between the arrival times of the three gravitational lensing images of the supernova. This time delay is proportional to Hubble’s constant and can be used to calculate this value. The group obtained an expansion velocity of 75.4 km/s/Mpa with a large uncertainty of 8.1%. Fry expects the error bars to correct after several years of similar measurements.

Both Friedman’s and Reiss’ teams predict that they will be able to get a better answer with James Webb’s observations in the coming years. “With improved data, the Hubble tension will eventually be resolved, and I think we’ll get to the bottom of it very quickly,” Friedman says.

Continue Reading

Space

James Webb vs. Hubble

Published

on

By

James Webb vs. Hubble
The first full-color image of James Webb was finally released this week after a long wait; But how are these new photos different from the Hubble Space Telescope images?

James Webb vs. Hubble; Comparing the images of two space telescopes

The James Webb Space Telescope is now the flagship of the world of space telescopes. James Webb uses the largest mirror of any telescope launched into space and orbits the Sun at a distance from Earth (approximately 1.5 million kilometers). This telescope is supposed to make a big change in astronomy and astrophysics by looking at the farthest parts of the world and unveiling new secrets.

However, in the past three decades, the Hubble Space Telescope has been the main player in the field of space telescopes. Launched in 1990, this telescope has recorded many epic images of planets, stars, galaxies, nebulae and many other astronomical wonders.

Since Hubble was in near-Earth orbit, it could take accurate pictures of the universe without the Earth’s atmosphere interfering with its operation. The telescope captured amazing images during its prolific career and continues to serve its mission. According to NASA, over the past 32 years, Hubble has made 1.5 million observations and contributed to more than 19,000 scientific papers.

Now James Webb is going to take the flag from Hubble and further enhance our understanding of the universe. In a blog post comparing the two space telescopes, NASA called James Webb the “scientific successor” to Hubble. Without Hubble’s observations of the cosmos, researchers would not have prioritized building a telescope that could go beyond Hubble’s field of view. Continue with Zoomit to have a closer look at the images of celestial targets in both telescopes.

Deep field

Hubble Deep Wallpaper

The top right photo is the deep Hubble wallpaper taken in 1995 and released in 1996. At the time of recording, this photo was considered the deepest image taken of the universe. In order to make it, the researchers took 342 photos during 10 days with a total of 100 hours of exposure. The final result revealed more than three thousand scattered galaxies in a very small part of the sky. Over the next few decades, Hubble operators took better pictures of this type and looked much deeper into space.

Hubble Ultra Deep Wallpaper
The Hubble Ultra Deep Image or XDF was released in 2012.

The photo above is the Hubble Ultra Deep Wallpaper released in 2012. More than 5500 galaxies are visible in this photo. Over the course of a decade, the researchers collected 50 days of observations from a concentrated area, resulting in two million seconds of exposure (over 23 days).

Then along came James Webb. The first full-color scientific photo by James Webb was released on Tuesday morning Iran time by US President Joe Biden as a preview for the first set of telescope images. While capturing Hubble’s deep fields required days, if not weeks, of exposure, James Webb managed to capture this image after just 12.5 hours of exposure.

The recorded area of ​​the sky in the image above is incredibly small; So small that it is about the size of a grain of sand on a person’s hand on the ground. In that part of the sky, a galaxy cluster called SMACS 0732 is located 4.6 billion light-years away. This cluster is so large that it bends space-time around it and, like a cosmic microscope, reveals faint galaxies far behind it. Some of these galaxies are considered to be the faintest infrared objects ever observed, and scientists are eagerly waiting to learn more about them.

Shahabhi Nebula (Karina)

The image above shows one of Hubble’s most popular targets, the Carina Nebula, at a distance of 7,200 light years from us. The image on the right, released by the Hubble Heritage Project in 2008, shows part of the star-forming region in the corner of the nebula.

The picture looks like an impressionist landscape with hills, valleys, and columns of gas and dust scattered around, with only a few bright stars behind the nebula. Now James Webb’s updated image shows the same stunning landscape in much greater detail and clarity. In the photo, there are stars that were previously hidden behind gas and dust.

Read more: Why is Jupiter one of the first targets of the James Webb Space Telescope?

Stephan’s quintuplets

This group of five galaxies is stunning in a Hubble image taken in 2009 after the telescope’s camera was upgraded earlier that year. That year, the space shuttle made its fifth and final visit to Hubble and applied a major upgrade. In addition to the new camera that took this photo, the telescope was also upgraded and repaired. The ability of astronauts to rendezvous with Hubble in near-Earth orbit kept the space telescope operational for a very long time.

However since James Webb is so far from Earth, he will not have the advantage of meeting astronauts. However, the spacecraft has enough fuel for at least 20 years; This means that in the future we will see many more images like the one above.

The photo above shows a group of galaxies that were first observed in 1877. The upper left galaxy is considered the alien mass of the group and is much closer to Earth than the other four members. However, the other four galaxies are so close that James Webb can see the shock waves from the interaction between them as they kill each other.

Stephen’s quintuplet is the largest image taken by the James Webb Telescope and is actually a mosaic made up of more than a thousand separate images captured by the telescope’s two instruments: the Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) and the Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI). Both cameras collect infrared wavelengths of light and help James Webb see through gas and dust; But as their names suggest, both collect different wavelengths of infrared light.

Southern Ring Nebula

The last image is the Southern Ring Nebula, which was imaged by Hubble in 1998. The “ring” is the dying star particles (the faintest of the two bright spots in the center of the image). The little white dwarf causing all this chaos was a star the size of our Sun. At some point, the star ran out of fuel and ejected its outer layers, creating the ring seen in the image. The diameter of the ring is about half a light year and the gases are moving outward at a speed of nearly 14.5 km/s.

On the left, the Southern Ring Nebula is seen through the eyes of James Webb’s two instruments, Nirkem and Miri. The image we have chosen for comparison was captured by Nirkam’s near-infrared camera. Another version of the image is also recorded in mid-infrared.

Continue Reading

Popular