The Genius Geometry of the James Webb Space Telescope

Подписаться 1,2 млн

Просмотров 258 тыс.

50% 1

Details about the Jane Street Academy of Math and Programming: www.janestreet.com/join-jane-... Apply by 15 March for full-scholarship attendance. See you there!
NASA made a great "Webb’s Diffraction Spikes" infographic.
webbtelescope.org/contents/me...
The differences between Webb and Hubble
www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/abo...
Webb deepfield
www.nasa.gov/image-feature/go...
Hubble deepfield
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_...
Here is the WebbPSF python package.
webbpsf.readthedocs.io/en/lat...
LIVE: Biden previews first images from Webb Space Telescope (reveal is at 05:37)
• LIVE: Biden previews f...
Bill Nelson born September 29, 1942. Joe Biden born November 20, 1942. They were both 79 at the time.
The images of space were all produced by NASA and the Space Telescope Science Institute who have kindly made them freely available for the rest of us to use.
Huge thanks to my Patreon supports. That shiny cardboard isn't cheap. / standupmaths
CORRECTIONS
- None yet, let me know if you spot anything!
Filming and editing by Alex Genn-Bash
Written and performed by Matt Parker
Produced by Nicole Jacobus
Music by Howard Carter
Design by Simon Wright and Adam Robinson
MATT PARKER: Stand-up Mathematician
Website: standupmaths.com/
US book: www.penguinrandomhouse.com/bo...
UK book: mathsgear.co.uk/collections/b...

Развлечения

Опубликовано:

5 июн 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 763

@4thalt Год назад

"Hexagons are the hexagreatest" My day has just been ruined.

@merezko4339 Год назад

Here I’ll say it for you “they are the Best-a-gons”

@justsomerandomguy8210 Год назад

@@merezko4339thanks I needed that

@OlegDorbitt Год назад

well that phrase is trademarked, so... I'm joking, of course, but can you imagine?

@Skaypegote Год назад

Don't worry my brother, hexagons are the bestagons. May the hexagon be with you

@yossithe9031 Год назад

The second i heard him say that I had a feeling someone would comment on it

@ajToncek Год назад

CGP gray may be happy...we just won't know until his next upload

@reold Год назад

@EyesOfByes Год назад

Hexagon is the bestagon

@CaptainFalcon92 Год назад

24years from now. Can't wait.

@Zveebo Год назад

I look forward to finding out in 2027.

@murk1e Год назад

No, it’s the hexa-greatest. Matt hath spoken

@stargazer7644 Год назад

The bit you seem to have missed between the first JWST image and the Hubble Deep Field is that the Hubble shot is about 22 DAYS of exposure time. The JWST exposure was only about 12.5 hours, yet it is 100 times deeper than Hubble. That's what makes it amazing - it shows just how big a step up JWST is over Hubble. Just wait until you see the 22 day JWST deep field.

@hexagonist23 Год назад

How about a 100 day JWST deep field

@stargazer7644 Год назад

@@hexagonist23 100 days wouldn't be as good as you might think. You reach diminishing returns due to the fact that the sensitivity only increases with the square root of the increase in exposure. So 100 days is only about 2.1 times better than 22 days, not 4.5 times better as you might think. And imagine all the other science you're missing during those 100 days! No, what we need is a bigger mirror.

@dustinbrueggemann1875 Год назад

@@stargazer7644 Ok, hear me out. What if we build a static observatory on the far side of the moon, with a 50 meter mirror?

@RedSunT Год назад

Hubble's first Deep Field image that Matt showed at 3:03 was actually shot over 10 days with over 100 hours of exposure time. You are probably talking about Hubble's eXtreme Deep Field image (not shown in the video) that accumulated about 23 days of exposure over the course of a decade.

@hexagonist23 Год назад

@@stargazer7644 what about 100,000 days?

@natdrat00 Год назад

7:10 "It's the Hubble, close enough is good enough." That is a deep cut.

@rzezzy1 Год назад

And a deeper field

@zperk13 Год назад

A Parker Telescope

@LA-MJ Год назад

Deep but out of spec

@AnonyMous-pi9zm Год назад

It's an old reference, about 30 years old, but it checks out!

@leogama3422 Год назад

It's a Parker paraboloid!

@0cellusDS Год назад

Klaus Teuber was the first person to create a model of the James Webb Space Telescope in 1995 when he invented Catan.

@patricks_music Год назад

I’ll trade you 2 wood for 2 wood.

@iluomopeloso Год назад

Does anyone have wood for sheep?

@davidalearmonth Год назад

It's unfortunate that they were never able to gather sufficient resources to build his version. The best they could do was 2 cities and a victory card.

@thezipcreator Год назад

how have I not gotten a brick it's literally on a 6 tile

@stephanep.joanisse7712 Год назад

I hate to burst your bubble but many tabletop games used hex maps long before Catan. Avalon Hill’s Gettysburg from the 1960s and GDW’s Traveller come to mind right off the top of my head.

@daeken Год назад

What truly blows my mind is that the JWST's mirrors make the Hubble look miniscule. But ... I've stood next to the Hubble telescope - or at least a clone of it - at the National Air & Space Museum a dozen times. It's literally the size of a school bus! The fact that it's now our "small" space telescope is astonishing.

@pastek957 Год назад

"Please let this be a normal field trip" "With the Frizz? No way!"

@jiminybb Год назад

A school bus of 2.4 meters? That's a tiny school bus. Or did you mean the height of a bus?

@KuK137 Год назад

@@jiminybb he meant both height and length...

@daeken Год назад

@@jiminybb no, I mean the entire telescope. It's 13 meters long and 4.2 meters in diameter -- basically the same as a large school bus

@jiminybb Год назад

@@daeken Oh my bad! I read it as "I've stood next to the Hubble telescope's mirror"

@JosiGold1 Год назад

Kid: Can we get the bestagon hexagons? Mom: but we have hexagons at home. The Hexagons at home :The hexagreatest

@piorfino Год назад

Lol this was way better then the joke I was going to make about hexagons being the bestagons

@jfb- Год назад

Hexagreatest is the Parker bestagon

@nienke7713 Год назад

both bestagon and hexagreatest are absolute cringe, but hexagreatest slitghly less, so you'd be lucky to have them instead of bestagons

@nienke7713 Год назад

they're both cringe, but hexagreatest>bestagon

@leogama3422 Год назад

Hexagreatest is polygawesome!

@twojuiceman Год назад

Everyone's talking about CGP Grey's "Hexagons are the bestagons" but nobody remembers Matt's "There is only one true parabola"

@diarya5573 Год назад

Probably because we want to forget the eldritch horror that is the end of that video

@twojuiceman Год назад

GLORIA IN-X-SQUARIS PARABOLATI CONFIRMED

@bandie9101 Год назад

you mean my ring tone?

@PhilBagels Год назад

And there is only one true paraboloid!

@leogama3422 Год назад

Not true. Hubble Telescope's mirror was shaped after the Parker parabola

@DeJay7 Год назад

"This model I've made of the James Webb Telescope is to scale, uhm actually it's roughly π% of the original but that was by accident ..." -Matt Πarker moment

@amandahodgin9316 Год назад

Classic!

@kindlin Год назад

The hεχαgρεατεsτ

@asheep7797 Год назад

Πiracy is a big issue.

@Rulerofwax24 Год назад

I had heard already that the secondary mirror supports were lined up to hide some of the diffraction pattern, but I didn't understand how that would leave two small horizontal lines. I thought it would have to be at an angle or only one line. For one, I didn't know the pattern was not an equilateral triangle and two, the thing that really surprised me, was that the diffraction lines were orthogonal to the supports. It blew my mind that the vertical support would cause a horizontal line. Looking closely at some JWST pictures, I can now see how the other four lines of the supports lay on top of the 6 larger lines - they are just a tad bit brighter than the two other large lines without the support diffraction on top.

@Gekoloudios Год назад

0:31 hexagreatest lmao

@tsptcod Год назад

I want to see a follow up video where Matt calculates the correct length of the secondary mirror.

@gordonrichardson2972 Год назад

The focal length is quite long. The distance to the secondary mirror is about 10 times the diameter of the primary mirror.

@Astromath Год назад

@@gordonrichardson2972 No, that would be more than 60m. I don't know any numbers by heart but I doubt the secondary mirror is more than 10m from the primary mirror Remember that the distance between primary and secondary mirror is not the same as the focal length

@Astromath Год назад

@@gordonrichardson2972 I looked it up, its focal length is 131.4m and the secondary mirror is 7.2m from the primary mirror

@benaycock1646 Год назад

This man has done many absurd & tedious maths antics, but all of a sudden won’t look up or calculate a simple support beam length? Where does he have the real Matt tied up? Lol🕵️

@gordonrichardson2972 Год назад

@@Astromath I looked it up, but only found the focal length, and misjudged the rest of the answer.

@charlestaylor3195 Год назад

Thank you. You're the first to actually explain how we're seeing what we see, and I've watch hundreds of videos about the JWST. That really brought things in to focus. Those mirrors or reflectors made to scale really shows how different they are.

@broadleyn Год назад

Brought it into focus, eh? I see what you did there...

@leogama3422 Год назад

I remember @LaunchPadAstronomy explaining this months ago...

@charlestaylor3195 Год назад

@@leogama3422 Well, he explained it in a way that I understand it, most just said it's caused by using all those mirrors.

@charlestaylor3195 Год назад

@suzyturquoiseblue Well, he explained it in a way that I understand it, most just said it's caused by using all those mirrors.

@charlestaylor3195 Год назад

@@broadleyn If one person smiled it was worth it.

@tymenvanessen3119 Год назад

why didnt they just hide all of the supports in 3 different corners of the hexagons? they could have done steps of 1/3 around from the first cornet they picked, and would have ensured that all 3 difraction directions have the same amount of distortion rather than having 2 lines be added on by the support plus the extra bar

@strehlow Год назад

I'm not certain, but I think it was a constraint from the way the mirror folded up.

@Morcubot Год назад

i was also wondering that. My theory is, that it has to do something with the logistics and the way it was been set up in space. Maybe this architecture was way easier to set up and to transport that it outweighed the inconvenience of the additional diffraction pattern. But again, this is just my thought, I have done only very little reasearch in this.

@Szibenwaro Год назад

My question exactly after watching the video. But after looking up pictures how the telescope was transported and set up, I'm sure it was the far better option in terms of structural implementation, and they had to make this compromise.

@cpthf3535 Год назад

first of all you have to remember that the telescope is so big it had to be folded to be launched, so you also have to deal with the issue of how to unfold it, automatically and without breaking. which takes precedence on where to put the supports. second, every Kg of payload on a vessel you have to pay something (money AND performance), so if you had to use 4 struts instead of 3 just to hide one little diffraction spike, you have to pay for it.

@eragonawesome Год назад

My understanding is that it's just not a big deal as far as the science is concerned. Like in a perfect world they'd have found a solution but with all the other priorities it just didn't really need to be fixed

@noahkra Год назад

I forgot how absolutely terrible that first image reveal was and yet how hyped I still was for it regardless hahaha

@Jimorian Год назад

While it may not have been spectacular or new, I think it was specifically chosen because it did have the same field surveyed by Hubble, so that they could truly see how much of a difference it would make.

@colinberg3342 Год назад

The White House jumped in at the last second to steal some pr glory, it was kinda weird.

@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 Год назад

It definitely seemed a lot more exciting in the moment. It's like the feeling when you watch a movie you loved as a kid and realize it's low-quality.

@andrycraft69 Год назад

15:36 This part broke me. We need to know more about Matt's temporal and cloning powers. I'm eagerly waiting for the PCU (Parker Cinematic Universe).

@MobMentality12345 Год назад

Haha I thought “How rude for Matt to interrupt Matt”

@HunterJE Год назад

Who do you think runs the "Matt_Parker_2" channel?

@bsharpmajorscale Год назад

It'd be great if there was a term for "large cluster of stars" that started with M and P, so his MCU equivalent could also be the MPMP.

@Kirmo13 Год назад

this video was so funny 2:30 "skipping over Bill's uninspired space ramble" 4:23 "what they do have in common, other than being in space, is they both have a space"

@asheep7797 Год назад

hexabest

@jostromp7380 Год назад

Dont forget 15:37 xd

@douglasboyle6544 Год назад

Okay, this really was genius. It's one of those things I never heard about before but I was glad I heard it from you because you explained it so well and in a way that I don't think a person who just does space stuff would have been able to make it so clear and elegant.

@sk8rdman Год назад

It's a good thing you've already established yourself as someone who's not afraid to make mistakes and leave it in. Otherwise I would have had a harder time forgiving you taping those supports the way you did initially.

@stuck_around Год назад

hexigons are indeed the hexiest shape

@bradennash9491 Год назад

Hexagreatest left me with the same feeling as a sneeze that never happened.

@evjq Год назад

11:05 first time a proper explanation of this effect truly clicked for me. Thanks!

@Firefoxav26 Год назад

I know it’s a joke, but somebody needs to make sure he sees how his presentation came across. They can’t keep wasting these educational opportunities on someone’s ego. Great job.

@JanBartnik Год назад

Matt, would you have anything against using your model idea for a sciency-crafty lesson? I imagine it would be a great and fairly easy DIY project for kids while also a science conversation starter.

@BoyKissBoy Год назад

I guarantee he wouldn't just not mind, but be very happy to know you help spread science education like that!

@itemushmush Год назад

you are such a great science communicator! love this

@Grummash Год назад

Mate… you have NEVER produced a rubbish video…. But this is very probably THE BEST video about the JWST… well done Sir! 👏👏👏👏🤜

@mitchellclark4377 Год назад

I took that same picture of the Cosmic Cliffs you have behind you and blew it up to fit on three 30x40in canvases for my living area... spectacular.

@FinBoyXD Год назад

I asked about this about 7 months ago in reddit and this explains it way better.

@fegari Год назад

beautifully explained, bravo!

@glasswingbutterfly Год назад

Loved this video, Matt. You explain things so well. I feel like I'm a hexpert now.

@KarstenJohansson Год назад

I think that's the first time I've heard the phrase "pi percent." This channel never ceases to amaze.

@john-paulwallcraft9362 Год назад

Thank you matt, always something I wanted to know about but never looked. So grateful I stumbled across it on my feed.

@tomschmidt381 Год назад

Great explanation of the diffraction artifacts on JWST.

@StoryMode180 Год назад

This was a fun video. I do love how much of the stellar art from my younger years reflects the view from the hubble; 4 point stars were the norm. But now, new media will likely reflect this new diffraction pattern. Lookin forward to our 6+ point stars.

@bsharpmajorscale Год назад

I'm curious about how this might effect sci-fi cinematography... or would it be something with animation/editing?

@StoryMode180 Год назад

@@bsharpmajorscale I think we'll see examples in both, though I do expect more traditional artistic renditions to continue as well, depending on who's working on a given project.

@EebstertheGreat Год назад

The new JWST image was not higher resolution than the old Hubble image. It was just in a different part of the spectrum. JWST has a much larger mirror than Hubble, but it detects light of much longer wavelengths, so in the end the resolution it achieves ranges from significantly better than Hubble (at the shortest wavelengths, in the red part of the spectrum) to significantly worse than Hubble (at the longest wavelengths, in the mid-infrared).

@AnonyMous-pi9zm Год назад

I often forget that the universe conspires to make resolution a wavelength dependent value instead of a fixed one. The universe is weird.

@AthAthanasius Год назад

Additional fact about the JWST secondary mirror ... it's spherical, meaning that each instrument gets a focused view *despite them being offset from each other*, but it's a slightly shifted view due to looking at the secondary mirror from a different position/angle. Think of it like one of those mirrors you see in some London Underground tube stations where the tunnels make a right-angle turn (or possibly have seen opposite some driveways with poor visibility). I was puzzled for a long time as to why the examples of the instruments' field of view denoted them with actually different views, but this is why. Also, I was hoping Matt was going to talk about the geometry of the sun shades, as they're very precise so as to be as good as possible at ejecting infra-red photons out the sides rather than letting them heat up the subsequent layers and thus the instrument/mirror side. However, I'm not too surprised, because when I heard about this from Smarter Every Day's video about measuring them very precisely ... I recall it being mentioned that the shape and the method used to develop it was proprietary. In essence the surfaces of any two adjacent layers are designed such that any photons bouncing between them will end up going out the edges.

@morgan0 Год назад

i’m guessing that works similarly to audio absorption spike panels, except the waves move the reverse direction, and it needs to be a more complex shape

@y2kkmac Год назад

The JWST's secondary mirror is a hyperboloid with a conic constant of -1.6598 +/-0.0005, not spherical. DOI 10.1117/12.889150

@Cyrribrae Год назад

@@y2kkmac Damn, I don't even know what that means, but I'm impressed.

@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 Год назад

@@y2kkmac bro just added a citation in a youtube comment. love that.

@AthAthanasius Год назад

@@y2kkmac Ah, it seems I was either misinformed, or misremembered that part. The *important* thing is that the secondary mirror is shaped such that every one of the instruments gets a full view of the image from the primary mirror, just pointing slightly differently for a slightly different view.

@zakuraayame5091 Год назад

Thank you for all you do; you are amazing

@KalpeshRingasia Год назад

Please make more videos about Geometry in Astrophysics & their equipment.... This is much more exciting to watch... Thank you... 🙏

@diarya5573 Год назад

More exciting than what!? I've personally loved the random videos recently

@andrewwmitchell Год назад

Good to see you get your Bec on!!

@kasperchristensen8416 Год назад

Great video, Matt!

@mechtheist Год назад

Vey cool video and subject. I was literally working on my own version of that mirror model when I started this video, it has 65mm sides but I'm also making a smaller one and planning on one like the Sussex folks made.

@sparshpriyadarshi Год назад

simple intuitive explanation. dig it

@zahirgizzi7009 Год назад

Why didn't they put them evenly spaced like one in every second corner? So they would still be 3 but it would all be more symmetric.

@schafer6811 Год назад

Remember that the primary mirror was folded up during its journey to L2, in order to fit into its spacecraft. The secondary support structure had to be designed to be compatible with that. My guess is that simplicity and reliability during unfurling won out over optical elegance.

@zahirgizzi7009 Год назад

@@schafer6811 Oh ok. Sounds good. Thanks

@DrakonIL Год назад

To add to Steve's point, it's fairly trivial to remove the diffraction spikes anyway. You just take two pictures rotated a few degrees and overlay them. Anywhere the pictures agree is "real," anywhere they disagree is an artifact. So, like Matt said, they leave the spikes in for the pretty photos because it's not worth the effort to get two photos, and the spikes contribute to the "pretty photo" mission, anyway.

@zahirgizzi7009 Год назад

@@DrakonIL ok

@stargazer7644 Год назад

They wanted them to align with 2 sides of the hexagons.

@Crabbi5 Год назад

This editiing is really good!

@pianodavid9676 Год назад

Loved this video :)

@Pieman93 Год назад

Love the seamless transition at 9:43 from "Fun Side-Fact" Matt back to (I presume) "Boring Main-Point" Matt

@DuelScreen Год назад

I'm reading a book called "Designed to the Core" written by astrophysicist Hugh Ross in which he describes the incredible advances in our understanding of the universe at the galaxy, galaxy cluster, and super cluster levels. The book is quite amazing.

@liliwheeler2204 Год назад

Hey we were just talking about this in my class earlier today!

@Erethakbe Год назад

At 12:40 you could also say they kept the vertical support to simplify the unfolding/deployment of the antenna (: (just adding engineering aspects to the physics aspects of a mathematician explanation)

@astrospeedcuber Год назад

I just learnt so much

@stoatystoat174 Год назад

excellent, thought i understood it before but didn't know about the 90 degrees thing so thought it was the left and right suports that were causing the spikes. F*kin love Hexigons

@lucasmoreau Год назад

Seeing pictures of the Tarantula and Carena Nebulæ behind Matt is heartwarming.

@tedhill2092 Год назад

great video, brilliantly produced by Nicole Jacobus

@asharak84 Год назад

Love the sass when talking about the heat shield on JWST @ 10:31

@RSLT Год назад

Super interesting none MATH video. Or a Sit-down math video!

@masheroz Год назад

Close enough is good enough! I like that line!

@petermoore9504 Год назад

To be fair to Bill and Joe they were in their 50s when JWST was started. :)

@playgroundchooser Год назад

🤣🤣

@peterfireflylund Год назад

They weren't particularly competent then -- and look at them now!

@ekevanderzee9538 Год назад

Finally, a good explanation.

@jasonpatterson8091 Год назад

In my astronomy classes we look at the Astronomy Picture of the Day as a warm up to class each day, and I've got 60 high schoolers who absolutely could tell you whether an image was taken by Hubble, JWST, or another observatory with similar diffraction spikes as Hubble. Once you know the diffraction spike patterns the 8 spikes of a JWST image are unmistakable, and a combination of 4 spikes and a ridiculous level of resolution generally mean a Hubble image. Most amateur astronomers whose images feature diffraction spikes wind up having four as well, but you generally can't see hundreds of galaxies in the background of those images.

@darrenhall2121 Год назад

Would you see the diffraction lines if you took a photo of a small light source in a dark room through the centre hexagon? Would be good to see if it worked the same way (although the diffraction lines may not be to scale since the supports weren't).

@ChrisPattisonCosmo Год назад

Love to see the geometry of telescopes being featured here! If anyone reading this wants to know more about the ground-based telescope which won't produce any diffraction spikes that Matt mentioned at the end, check out this video all about it (it's called the Giant Magellan Telescope) that explains how it all works 🔭🔭: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-orFNSSMII3g.html

@thedayb4tomorrow Год назад

The maths is lovely, the model is adequate. Wisdom for the ages 🙂

@DasBauer Год назад

The outro. Great contrast

@SkillTimO Год назад

Er 12:41 shows two supports on the corners and one on a side. Matt's model 14:50 shows one on a corner and two on the sides. Stick to numbers Matt. Love the channel and I hope I win a prize.

@GlizzyTrefoil Год назад

I will reflect on the contents of this video

@maryhadda8420 Год назад

That's cool! I knew about diffraction from the supports, but I hadn't considered that from the edges of the mirrors. Duh!

@SharienGaming Год назад

i appreciate the expansion of the mattiverse with side-fun-fact matt, great addition is there any information if we can expect a great crossover of all mattiverse characters in one video?^^

@TheNameOfJesus Год назад

It wasn't the resolution that made the Webb image better, it was the fact that the Hubble's image was exposed for about a week, while the Webb image was exposed for a few hours. (I forget the exact durations, but it was something like that.)

@RedSunT Год назад

Hubble's deep field image was exposed for 10 days vs. 12.5 hours for the Webb image

@TheNameOfJesus Год назад

@@RedSunT Thanks! So even if the Webb image was the same as Hubble's, the fact that it required over 20 times less exposure makes it about 20 times better. More time would give more resolution. Matt is a mathematician and should have understood this.

@PetraKann Год назад

Diffraction spikes occur in my Newtonian Reflector due to the thin braces that support the 45 degree diagonal mirror within the main tube of the telescope.

@kkobayashi1 Год назад

Sorry Matt, but as an astronomer, I'd have to say it's wrong to think of diffraction spikes as being caused by edges. It's caused by the symmetry of the overall shape. If the telescope had two circular apertures side by side, there would be 2 diffraction spikes even though there are no straight vertical edges. To be more precise, the point spread function of the telescope is a Fourier transform of the aperture.

@SimonBuchanNz Год назад

Is that for the mirror shape? It doesn't seem to explain the support spikes.

@kkobayashi1 Год назад

@@SimonBuchanNz Shape of the actual clear aperture, which does not include the area obstructed by the second mirror or its supports.

@SimonBuchanNz Год назад

Right, that makes sense when I "unfold" the light path in my head, the whole thing is the aperture!

@nathnolt Год назад

Nice video.

@noxabellus Год назад

Particularly funny episode I loved this one

@dogbiscuituk Год назад

You're in trouble when your physicist wife hears you call the Hubble mirror "supersymmetric" 😄

@WhirligigGirl Год назад

of course you can tell the two deep fields apart. the JWST deep field is looking at a more nearby galaxy group and so it has a bunch of less red-shifted larger objects in the foreground. and of course the stars are six pointed--and both images contain at least a few stars.

@michaelklemm-abraham7298 Год назад

Actually, the main mirror of the Hubble space telescope is not parabolic (they would be if it was a classical Cassegrain design) but it is a Ritchey-Cretien design (sometimes called Ritchey-Cretien-Cassegrain) which uses a hyperbolic primary mirror. I can't find many details about the JWST design but all I found was the information it might be a Korsch type design using an elipsoid primary mirror.

@aaronhubbard2647 Год назад

Amazing!

@JS-yj7ow Год назад

Space crafts and arts and crafts! I ❤ that!

@bsharpmajorscale Год назад

I wonder. If you did a survey of sci-fi cinematography, how many of the space shots would be informed or inspired by the original four-point images? Well, I guess since the new one's too new, it would be most of them. It'd be interesting to look at space films a few years from now to see if anything's changed in that regard. I think one of the original Star Trek movies had a large four-point star shot.

@warriorsabe1792 Год назад

You mentioned how there's three types in there, if you look super closely at the images, you can actually see that each of the main spikes are split into three

@Xelopheris Год назад

Wouldn't having the supports for the secondary mirror be 120 degrees apart from one another allow it to hide all the refraction caused by them behind the mirrors refractions? I guess the position they took also had to consider the engineering of how it would pack and expand itself when deployed?

@Morcubot Год назад

Yes it would have hid the diffraction pattern. I think, that you are right. Probably it has something to do with the way it has been transported and set up. But I'm not sure either

@Br3ttM Год назад

I think width when folded, and the direction the mirrors fold, meant they couldn't do that.

@mysterion9686 Год назад

Was thinking the same. I was a little bit shocked whe Matt went 30° the other way with the second support, and then straight up with the third.

@susvart Год назад

You should have used “Hexagon are the Bestagones”. Their is pretty good on it.

@obvioululante2183 Год назад

Great video, as always! This got me thinking, though. Why didn't they use a 4-legged support to completely hide its diffraction inside the ones from the mirrors?

@Ferraro96 Год назад

Probably because three-legged support is more stable

@mytube001 Год назад

@@Ferraro96 I think it was probably more due to lower unfolding complexity the fewer parts there are, and also that a fourth diffraction source adds total diffraction, even if it's overlaid.

@laju Год назад

Or three equally spaced ones.

@TheErdnuss007 Год назад

more weight added is also not always desirable

@thecommexokid Год назад

Probably decided the extra weight of a 4th leg wasn't worth it when 3 was all they needed for stability.

@Jetpans Год назад

When you said it was paraboloid it all made sense... I was like, how are(singular) flat mirrors ever useful for light observation. But saying they are paraboloids explained it all :D Kind of a big point you missed telling at the start no? Maybe its only me, as an engineering student that needed that info.

@AnalogDude_ Год назад

6:10 They have made a mathematical formula to calculate refraction on the support(s) of the mirrors.

@jordanthedove Год назад

I think they would've spaced the supports equally to hide all the diffraction spikes, but the three edge mirror on each side folded out!

@TheTonyMcD Год назад

0:27 Woo! A CGP Gray reference!

@syednadal9142 Год назад

Thanks boss

@electroninja8768 Год назад

Was programming a game-grid for a project of mine the other day. And I was trying to solve the problem of having an omni-directional looping grid of square tiles for the game world. Ended up making a cube with only 6 corners, and it works just fine. Math is fun.

@SimonBuchanNz Год назад

My brain is breaking trying to picture a "cube with only 6 corners" to make "an omni-directional looping grid of square tiles" Like, does it still have 6 faces? What's the adjacency? Why not just join the opposing edges of a rectangle, Asteroids / Pacman style? (which creates a topological torus) Not to say you've done anything wrong, I'm just very confused 😵‍💫

@electroninja8768 Год назад

@@SimonBuchanNz @SimonBuchanNz Yes, it is comprised of 6 square sides all of equal dimension. Okay adjacency is going to be fun, since youtube won't let me post a image link in a comment. I will do my best to describe it. Imagine a 3x3 grid. each of the elements in this matrix represent a grid with an equal length and width. The top left, top right, and bottom left elements are missing. This leaves 6 remaining. These are our faces. Imagine a 4x4 grid, I will use this as the corners for our example. Each corner is given a number reading left to right, and top to bottom. [null,5,5,null] [4,6,3,2] [3,2,1,5] [null,5,4,6]. These corners represent how each grid is linked with its adjacent grids. Do you know a way to post an image link in the comments? The reason I didn't do a torus is because the corners wouldn't display correctly when a player approached them(since the view-port is significantly smaller than one face), which would ruin the "illusion" of it being a 3d world.

@sky01james28 Год назад

Oh, a 3d world? Why didn’t you just say so 😂 makes me think of the vid Matt did on 3d-to-2d map projections

@Veptis 7 месяцев назад

Spiral supports for your secondary is where it's at. If you talk about diffraction and astronomy, like at the lovely math behind a bahtinov mask, a focusing aid.

@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 Год назад

I never realized until now that the mirrors are slightly curved inward. That's a very simple detail but it changes so much.

@stargazer7644 Год назад

They are parabolas. They bring the light to focus in a single point.

@skarflute7989 Год назад

well i had a doubt on it, can we use some sort of magnets in space to prevent those defractions? will be hard to have such a focused and proper use of magnets with precision but can we?

@kainan613 Год назад

Instant like on that delivery of "hexagreatest"

@mgmanzanillo Год назад

Don't know if that was play against CGP Grey's saying that: "Hexagon is the Bestagon"? Also a bit weird having no background music on most of the video. I'd prefer if you still have a tune playing. Otherwise, great video Matt!

@TheOwlman Год назад

"Close enough is good enough", somehow apt for Hubble, andthat's what you get for not checking the equipment that you use for checking (so meta and recursive, but....)

@stargazer7644 Год назад

No, that's what you get for not testing the final assembly of a 1.5 billion dollar telescope before launching it into space. They did do tests of the mirror that showed the figure was wrong, but they ignored those results because they felt that test wasn't as accurate as the primary test that was setup wrong.

@TheOwlman Год назад

@@stargazer7644 Well they did rely on a single measuring instrument during its construction, and then you can fall prey to a rogue paint fleck throwing off your calibration. Any consequent ignoring of the "slight" error merely compounded their folly. At least JWST can adjust the figure of the mirror on the fly, so lessons were learned (I know, it uses a totally different technology, and that is good thing).

@stargazer7644 Год назад

@@TheOwlman JWST doesn't adjust the positioning of its mirrors to avoid what happened to Hubble. They did an all-up full integration test on the ground to avoid what happened to Hubble. JWST is composed of 19 independent mirrors. THAT's why they're adjustable - so they can be configured to act as one mirror.

@TheOwlman Год назад

@@stargazer7644 I realise that, I was more commenting on the change in technology from a single monolithic mirror, relying on a fixed curvature - something that is being applied to terrestrial optical telescopes. Edit: Though that is also part of the modern adaptive optics too.

@alan2here Год назад

go-pro time, lets see how good it is :)

@cyrilio Год назад

If the secondary mirrors were held in place by tethers thinner than the wavelength of the light you want to capture. Would these spikes disappear?

@sarahgoo5541 Год назад

Isn’t the Hubble mirror a hyperboloid? It being a Ritchey-Chrétien design

@user-yw9mw9hv8o Год назад

The cool bit about this ultra deep field image is how revolutionary the first one, that hubble took was, and how much faster and better webb could resolve it... to get about the same image, yeah that was the point but it's not great to just present that without much context...