Ocean planet discovered 100 ly from Earth

[Goonie]

I’m sure Truss is already looking at how to deport ‘illegal’ immigrants to it.

 

[Halbhh]

I've been a bit disappointed NASA when I found out the Webb telescope images are heavily modified. They use non-visible light and even radio waves to produce the pictures we see. For instance the Carina Nebula goes from what the telescope actually sees:

That is nothing new all their images are altered

Jupiter becomes this

View attachment 320174
or this

View attachment 320176
​

You cannot see microwaves or far infrared. But they are quite real.

So, when an infrared camera takes a picture of infrared light (which we cannot see), the image the camera takes is intentionally processed to assign colors that we can see to the infrared light that we could not see with our unaided eyes.

Like so:

Of course the infrared radiation isn't actually yellow and pink and orange....

Those are just useful colors the machine is designed to assign to the infrared spectrum, in order to help us know where the heat is in the photo, and how hot, etc.

Make sense?

It's the exact same principle in the JWST images for parts of the spectrum of radiation we cannot see with our eyes.

We want to be able to see those parts...

So, therefore, in order to be able to see those parts, we have to assign colors to those, to help us visualize that radiation we cannot naturally see with our unaided eyes.

It's sorta like how a dog can hear wavelengths of sound that humans cannot hear, so that the dogs hears the dog whistle even though we do not hear the sound of the dog whistle.

If you wanted, you could shift down high pitched sounds beyond our hearing range by electronically lowering their pitches many octaves as needed so that the resulting lowered sound pitch comes down into the range that we can hear.

It would be assigning a pitch that we can hear to a pitch that we cannot, for the sake of being able to perceive it directly.

 

[Halbhh]

Scientists have discovered a beautiful ocean world that looks like it was ripped out of the Star Wars prequels. The exoplanet TOI-1452 b was discovered just 100 light-years from Earth. A new paper on the discovery says that the entire planet is covered by a thick layer of water and that it’s located far enough from its star to possibly support life.

If TOI-1452b is covered in liquid water, that means the surface temperature is in the sweet spot that might support life. How cool is that?

Scientists discovered a beautiful ocean world 100 light-years from Earth

The article has a link to the original paper. Which has more detail, but is quite technical.

TOI-1452 b: SPIRou and TESS Reveal a Super-Earth in a Temperate Orbit Transiting an M4 Dwarf - IOPscience

Brings to mind the various articles of many years back about how a too-deep ocean (that is quite a lot deeper than here on Earth) without any shallow areas (or land) was considered and the analysis was that this condition of very very deep water lacking some reasonably more shallow areas might not be very favorable to life.

Let me look that up...

 

[Halbhh]

Scientists have discovered a beautiful ocean world that looks like it was ripped out of the Star Wars prequels. The exoplanet TOI-1452 b was discovered just 100 light-years from Earth. A new paper on the discovery says that the entire planet is covered by a thick layer of water and that it’s located far enough from its star to possibly support life.

If TOI-1452b is covered in liquid water, that means the surface temperature is in the sweet spot that might support life. How cool is that?

Scientists discovered a beautiful ocean world 100 light-years from Earth

The article has a link to the original paper. Which has more detail, but is quite technical.

TOI-1452 b: SPIRou and TESS Reveal a Super-Earth in a Temperate Orbit Transiting an M4 Dwarf - IOPscience

First, this interesting point about how deep those exoplanet oceans would typically be.

Very deep oceans should be the norm for somewhat larger planets forming not overly close to a star, I'd think.

What makes one think so? It's because water ought to be the most common molecule in the universe after the forms of hydrogen molecules.
(because supernovae make and eject oxygen especially, thus one would think that prodigious amounts of H2O get formed as the effect of those trillions of supernovae. Basically we should expect that in the Universe water is everywhere)

"Now, a new study suggests that some exoplanet water worlds could have oceans much deeper than any in our solar system. Unfathomably deep, even, as in hundreds or thousands of miles deep. The new research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on April 29, 2019, by Harvard University astronomer Li Zeng and his colleagues. Zeng explained that, according to the team’s computer simulations, some planets may have incredibly deep oceans ....

Earth’s oceans are nowhere near as deep. The average ocean depth on Earth is about about 2.2 miles (3.5 km).
The research indicates that many sub-Neptunes are quite wet, but just how wet are they? The results show that at least 25 percent of their mass would water or ice, and perhaps up to 50 percent. That’s a staggering amount. We think of Earth as being a water world, but its mass is actually only 0.025 percent water, by comparison. Some water worlds may have so much water that they are completely water-logged, fluid all the way down into the deepest parts of the planet."
Unfathomably deep oceans on alien water worlds? | Space | EarthSky

 

[Halbhh]

Scientists have discovered a beautiful ocean world that looks like it was ripped out of the Star Wars prequels. The exoplanet TOI-1452 b was discovered just 100 light-years from Earth. A new paper on the discovery says that the entire planet is covered by a thick layer of water and that it’s located far enough from its star to possibly support life.

If TOI-1452b is covered in liquid water, that means the surface temperature is in the sweet spot that might support life. How cool is that?

Scientists discovered a beautiful ocean world 100 light-years from Earth

The article has a link to the original paper. Which has more detail, but is quite technical.

TOI-1452 b: SPIRou and TESS Reveal a Super-Earth in a Temperate Orbit Transiting an M4 Dwarf - IOPscience

There's a blitz of newer articles hoping that ocean worlds are very life friendly. heh heh... Perhaps.... It reminds me a little of hoping for FLT travel (though FLT travel is more out-there, because in our relatively shallow Earth oceans we know they have lots of 'deep' ocean life).

But Earth has this wonderful thing of having both a lot of surface water but that the water isn't all that deep -- allowing shallow areas, and even margins with land, and so on.

But it's the not-too-deep quality of Earth's surface water that came to mind.

This isn't the article I remembered that I was looking for, but does have some of the pieces, so I'll post it for now, since I'm rushed for time at the moment. I don't have time to read it all at the moment, but another thing (in case it's not elaborated enough in the article) was the idea that having oceans not overly deep allows plate tectonics to progress better, and that is very favorable for long term good conditions for life as we know it.

“Understanding plate tectonics is a major key to understanding our own planet and its habitability. How do you make a habitable planet, and then sustain life on it for billions of years?” said Katharine Huntington, a geologist at the University of Washington. “Plate tectonics is what modulates our atmosphere at the longest timescales. You need that to be able to keep water here, to keep it warm, to keep life chugging along.”
Why Earth’s Cracked Crust May Be Essential for Life | Quanta Magazine

So, I'll try to search more later, try to dig up more of these kinds of more careful consideration from underneath the huge pile of more recent hopeful style articles.

 

[Astrophile]

!!! *mind blown*

I still feel like the Carina Nebula might be using an age-filter to hide her wrinkles and a few lbs. When you meet her in person she's probably more like 12 billion and not 10.

The Carina Nebula is a young nebula, where stars are forming now; it is certainly not 12 billion years old.

 

[sjastro]

How JWST produces colour images is explained in this video.
The JWST detectors are not CCD (charged coupled device) based as I claimed in my previous post but are a HgCdTe array (Mercury-Cadmium-Tellurium).

Here is America's answer to Dr Becky explaining how colour images are produced.

 

[jacks]

Some great responses on the JWST images. (Especially sjastro's video). Being one of the great unwashed masses, I naively thought they were actual pictures, not photoshopped renditions. Where colors are "artistically" assigned to make pretty pictures. Apparently I'm the only one, everyone else is like "Duh"! I love the photos and use them as my screen savers, etc. I just thought (hoped) that if I was actually out in space the images we are shown is what I would really see. Yes, I'm an idiot.

Partial transcript from the video:
...is visible light for JD with CPA okay the vast majority of it is not
detectable to our eyes this means that all of the jwst images are false color
now this is not trying to mislead anyone this is just how we have to translate
information to make it useful to see okay so they have all of these filters
to choose from and they can assign light from a given filter a certain color and
then stack all of these images on top of one another to get a composite image
that is in beautiful full color now there's a lot of choice about what
filters to use so this is going to be basically chosen by by what looks best
so we're talking about making these full color images that are going to be
released for the public these images are art these are meant to be looked at
they're meant to be appreciated they're meant to be seen and to illustrate the
beauty of the universe scientists are usually working with the raw data from
the fits files that's in black and white they might use the filters for
scientific purposes but not usually to make images like this this is kind of
more on the engagement side of things now while they could choose pretty much
any color for any filter they usually do try to use a kind of sorting that is
similar to visible light so the shorter wavelength filters will usually get a
Bluer color while the longer wavelength filters will get a redder color this
doesn't mean though that it's like a one-to-one mapping of like oh just add
100 nanometers or something and shift everything into the visual there's
definitely going to be you know some artistic Choice here so let's look

 

[Halbhh]

I just thought (hoped) that if I was actually out in space the images we are shown is what I would really see

That would be possible to do actually for the large redshift objects.

It would be possible to simply un-redshift them to make them appear as they would at a lower redshift. (Just process the data to shift the frequencies consistently).

As if we were much closer.

If done, then you could have the actual colors that a human eye would naturally see at that new redshift level.

 

[sjastro]

That would be possible to do actually for the large redshift objects.

It would be possible to simply un-redshift them to make them appear as they would at a lower redshift. (Just process the data to shift the frequencies consistently).

As if we were much closer.

If done, then you could have the actual colors that a human eye would naturally see at that new redshift level.

This is not strictly speaking true.
If we applied a shift transformation to the data there is nothing preventing the appearance of green coloured galaxies and stars which do not exist according to what the human eye sees.

The colour of a star depends on its blackbody temperature.
The blackbody spectrum peaks at green wavelengths at 6000 K but since the spectrum is broad on either side of the central green wavelengths, the additive effects of the wavelengths results in the human eye seeing the colour green as white.

 

[Halbhh]

This is not strictly speaking true.
If we applied a shift transformation to the data there is nothing preventing the appearance of green coloured galaxies and stars which do not exist according to what the human eye sees.

The colour of a star depends on its blackbody temperature.
The blackbody spectrum peaks at green wavelengths at 6000 K but since the spectrum is broad on either side of the central green wavelengths, the additive effects of the wavelengths results in the human eye seeing the colour green as white.

Heh, that was my starting point in thinking on it (blackbody stuff is very elementary), but my aim above is to help someone for whom all of this is unfamiliar stuff. (I'm just putting into new wording what we are already basically doing)

Viz:

Basic background stuff: The main light contributions from the very early stars are the superluminous, super hot and mostly radiating outside our visual range stars.

The radiation of the most luminous of these massive early stars in the earliest galaxies of the Universe is going to be mostly ultraviolet, or 'extreme ultraviolet', or better, let's use a specific example of currently observed near limit star.

Something specific: "Temperatures of 53,000–56,000 K are found for R136a1 using different atmospheric models. Older models had produced temperatures around 45,000 K and hence dramatically lower luminosities.[25] The extreme temperature of the star causes its peak radiation to be around 50 nm and nearly 99% of the radiation to be emitted outside the visual range (a bolometric correction around −5)."

So, this thought experiment can help someone start to understand the whole general process:

We could think on this way: suppose we wanted to get an idea of what such a very early galaxy of redshift above 15 might look like if we were much closer to it, i.e. 'reduce the redshift' (un-redshift is just an off the cuff word I made up) into what it might look like if we were hypothetically (thought experiment) much closer (but of course not all that close...) , then we'd want to shift the spectrum peak into the human eye range.

At this point you should recognize I'm merely saying a parallel to what is already being done.

But, this simplification could aid comprehension. It's not meant to replace a more technical look.

 

[sjastro]

Heh, that was my starting point in thinking on it (blackbody stuff is very elementary), but my aim above is to help someone for whom all of this is unfamiliar stuff. (I'm just putting into new wording what we are already basically doing)

Viz:

Basic background stuff: The main light contributions from the very early stars are the superluminous, super hot and mostly radiating outside our visual range stars.

The radiation of the most luminous of these massive early stars in the earliest galaxies of the Universe is going to be mostly ultraviolet, or 'extreme ultraviolet', or better, let's use a specific example of currently observed near limit star.

Something specific: "Temperatures of 53,000–56,000 K are found for R136a1 using different atmospheric models. Older models had produced temperatures around 45,000 K and hence dramatically lower luminosities.[25] The extreme temperature of the star causes its peak radiation to be around 50 nm and nearly 99% of the radiation to be emitted outside the visual range (a bolometric correction around −5)."

So, this thought experiment can help someone start to understand the whole general process:

We could think on this way: suppose we wanted to get an idea of what such a very early galaxy of redshift above 15 might look like if we were much closer to it, i.e. 'reduce the redshift' (un-redshift is just an off the cuff word I made up) into what it might look like if we were hypothetically (thought experiment) much closer (but of course not all that close...) , then we'd want to shift the spectrum peak into the human eye range.

At this point you should recognize I'm merely saying a parallel to what is already being done.

But, this simplification could aid comprehension. It's not meant to replace a more technical look.

Wasn’t this discussion about reproducing colour as perceived by the human eye by using a transformation on the pixel data?

When dealing with JWST IR data, the presence of green stars in the data is not the issue here, but the presence of any colour.
You can “un-redshift” by applying the conversion factor 1/(1+z) to each pixel in the image where z is the redshift value.
The JWST data however is in monochrome irrespective of whether the image is filtered or not and applying the transformation isn’t going to convert it into a colour image let alone as perceived by the human eye in the object’s frame of reference.

The sensor is a photon counter and after processing produces a histogram or distribution of the photon energies striking the sensor.
For objects imaged in the visual part of the spectrum, colour images as perceived by the eye can be produced by combining red, green and blue filtered monochrome images where the filters separate photons out into different energy ranges.
In this case a red colored galaxy can indicate a high redshift if the IR data is imaged as a luminance filtered exposure L along with the R, G and B images.
If you attempt to apply the 1/(1+z) transformation to the final colour image unfortunate consequences such as green coloured stars or galaxies can occur.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Seems to me that telescopes do not see at all. The agent doing the seeing are the humans.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Scientists discovered a beautiful ocean world 100 light-years from Earth

I've got this crackpot theory God intends to drive us off the planet. To do that we'll learn to teleport, based on quantum entanglement.

If we do, and we get that far, we'll be able to make a movie called "Waterworld"!

Kevin Costner might not want the lead role though - he might think it's a bit risky, or maybe he'll be a bit too old.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Seems to me that telescopes do not see at all. The agent doing the seeing are the humans.

It really depends on what you call "seeing". (BTW: "Seeing" is the word astronomers use to describe how smeared out the atmosphere makes an observation. It is measured in units of angular resolution and smaller is better. It varies from night to night and site to site.)

If you mean "perception" then it is your brain that does the "seeing" and your eyes are just detectors, the same as the telescope detectors that capture the images that are then processed for our eyes to capture and our brains to interpret.

The color images are just a way to display the data in a way that allows us to use those image processing facilities in our brains (which are still more sophisticated than any computer algorithm) and choose representations that keep simple identification criteria in mind. For example, in that very first JWST image of the galaxy cluster and the lensed galaxies behind it, the JWST filters are mapped to colors in such a way that the cluster galaxies appear whitish and the more distant (and redshifted) background galaxies are orange/red. Doing so makes it easier to sort them, especially in a crowded field.

 

[AV1611VET]

It really depends on what you call "seeing". (BTW: "Seeing" is the word astronomers use to describe how smeared out the atmosphere makes an observation. It is measured in units of angular resolution and smaller is better. It varies from night to night and site to site.)

I call it "myopia."

 

[Hans Blaster]

I call it "myopia."

Then you would be wrong. Myopia is when the focus (of the eye) is not on the retina. "Seeing" is about angular resolution, particularly as affected by things like atmospheric turbulence. Think of it more like fog or a greasy smudge on glass. Both reduce effective angular resolution without changing the focal length.

 

[durangodawood]

Space is fake!....

When you throw a rock up it bounces off the lid and comes back.

 

[jayem]

I've got this crackpot theory God intends to drive us off the planet. To do that we'll learn to teleport, based on quantum entanglement.

If we do, and we get that far, we'll be able to make a movie called "Waterworld"!

Kevin Costner might not want the lead role though - he might think it's a bit risky, or maybe he'll be a bit too old.

If we're sent to the water world, we'll just abuse, pollute, and ruin it, like we've done to this planet.
So I don't think we'll be banished from Earth. What's more likely is that God will accelerate the evolution of our fellow primates. They'll become the most intelligent species, and will have dominion over us. And I know just what they'll say about us:

"Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn."

 

[Estrid]

When you throw a rock up it bounces off the lid and comes back.

Proof positive