Exoplanet images and AI upscaling

[Trolligi 112477]

is this what you're saying? Is that entire thing the planet?

[Sirius_Alpha]

The planet's position is at the ~centre of that red blob. That blob is created by the light from the planet interacting with the CCD of JWST's detectors, which is what the NASA article says. Again, is it possible you just didn't understand the nature of the image they were presenting? It's alright to admit that - we've all been wrong about something in our lives. We're probably all wrong about beliefs we currently hold. Being able to recognize when we were mistaken is a significant mark of maturity and necessary for self-improvement.

[john71]

you just didn't understand the nature of the image they were presenting

I didn't have time to read anything I just upscaled an "exoplanet" texture.

Well it seems they did not present any image of an exoplanet.

I feel duped.

[Trolligi 112477]

It's an image of an exoplanet because the exoplanet is in the image and it's the main reason why the image was taken. An exoplanet image doesn't need to show the exoplanet up close.

[john71]

An exoplanet image doesn't need to show the exoplanet up close.

Now I know.

[Sirius_Alpha]

Well it seems they did not present any image of an exoplanet

They did present an image of an exoplanet. It's just not resolved. Just like how every pic of the night sky does show stars, they just aren't resolved.

I feel duped

You weren't. Nobody duped you. Nobody misled you. You just didn't understand what you were looking at, which is perfectly fine! I've been there before. I remember looking at ultraviolet images of Venus and thinking that the planet looked like that, only to later find out that it didn't. I wasn't lied to or duped, I just didn't understand the nature of the images I was looking at. Stop trying to blame others for simple misunderstandings on your part, and take the opportunity to learn and grow.

[john71]

Stop trying to blame others for simple misunderstandings on your part, and take the opportunity to learn and grow.

Apparently I can't work with JWST exoplanet data, because JWST can't produce any useful exoplanet textures.

My personal knowledge and growth won't make the textures at least 3 pixels wide.

[Sirius_Alpha]

My personal knowledge and growth won't make the textures at least 3 pixels wide.

No but it will allow you to better understand this stuff going forward, and reflect better on your maturity as a person. Nobody wants to be around someone who "always has to be right," These sorts of people are particularly disdainful to interact with.

Apparently I can't work with JWST exoplanet data, because JWST can't produce any useful exoplanet textures.

This wasn't a problem with JWST. This was a misunderstanding on your part (you, yes you, john71, not someone else, not NASA, not JWST, not Isaac Newton for personally rigging the field of optics against you specifically). JWST data could be used to create textures of exoplanets, but it will be through indirect means. Kepler has done so for Kepler-7b for example. It's just a matter of understanding how the data works, and approaching the problem after studying it a bit more.

There is photometric data in the form of light curves for exoplanets that exist right now that haven't yet been turned into maps for exoplanets. You could do that if you want.

[john71]

This wasn't a problem with JWST. This was a misunderstanding on your part

I'm not denying it, you are right.

I think subconsciously I knew that, but I wanted to believe that's a real exoplanet texture.

Reality sucks.

Progress is so slow.

[john71]

One last thought.

This is an image of an apple:

apple->

apple-i-1322292 one pixel public 2.jpg

Warning: this is a one pixel version of a real free apple picture.

Definition of image: a visual representation of something: such as
(1): a likeness of an object produced on a photographic material
(2): a picture produced on an electronic display (such as a television or computer screen)
b: the optical counterpart of an object produced by an optical device (such as a lens or mirror) or an electronic device.

***
Is it really the likeness of an object?

Is it a visual representation?

Is it an optical counterpart?

Or is it just a frequency without any form or pattern?

If an image has no information about the pattern or form of the object, is it an image of the object at all?

[Sirius_Alpha]

This feels like just another attempt to try to blame NASA for your misunderstanding. Nobody has to go through such tortured mental gymnastics. It's just you contorting yourself like this. The rest of us aren't having any problems recognizing what the JWST image is and what its limitations are. If you take a picture of an object very far away, such that it's less than a pixel across, it's going to just be a dot on the image, and that dot might be a bit fuzzy because of the way the optics work.

Go out of your house at night, take a picture of some stars with a camera. Then try to work with those images. Maybe that will help you understand what's going on.

And, being as diplomatic as I know how...

This is why no one likes you. You can't just accept that you were wrong. You've got to launch some contorted pseudophilosophical tirade to try to justify why you might actually be right, or why your misunderstanding is someone else's fault. It's like you sit there spending the entirety of your mental energy trying to justify yourself. It's tiring. No one wants to deal with that. When I publish an update to the exoplanet catalogue, every single update I list the things I got wrong and corrected. I don't spend time blaming NASA, blaming Einstein, blaming something else, or trying to make some tortured argument for why the exoplanet catalogue was actually right if you look at it with some novel philosophical interpretation of representation. You should adopt a more humble position where you can accept not having been right about something.

I refuse to believe that you genuinely think taking a single pixel of an apple, and blowing it up to a single colour square is somehow anything remotely resembling an analogous situation to taking a picture of an object that's unresolved. You will have to put more effort into convincing me that you're that unaware of how cameras work.

One last thought.

And we all know it won't be. Because you'll literally be here for days making up excuses for yourself. That's what we saw with the Uranus thing, and it's what you'll do here, too. Because there's no hill you won't die in to preserve your ability to walk away from a discussion safe in the security that you were "right," or at least more right than anyone else. And because there's so many more things I should be doing than entertaining this, this post will be my last thought on the matter.

[john71]

I'm sorry, just two technical questions to help me understand your post: is there a counterargument somewhere or is it just an endless ad hominem fallacy? Or are you saying that I upscaled the image of the distorted mirror of JWST?

[SevenSpheres]

If an image has no information about the pattern or form of the object, is it an image of the object at all?

Your "image" of an apple isn't, but this is an image of Proxima Centauri, this is an image of Haumea and its moons, and the JWST image is an image of HIP 65426 b. These aren't equivalent - the astronomical images do provide information about the objects, just not information about their visual appearance that can be used to make a map. The only information provided by your solid color square is its color. If your logic is applied, it would mean we've only imaged a small handful of stars and no exoplanets (and the term "direct imaging" couldn't be used to refer to the discovery method for many exoplanets).

Or are you saying that I upscaled the image of the distorted mirror of JWST?

Can you quote the text that gave you that impression? I don't see that anywhere.

[john71]

john71 wrote:
Or are you saying that I upscaled the image of the distorted mirror of JWST?

Can you quote the text that gave you that impression? I don't see that anywhere.

Sirius_Alpha posted this image:

30auwide.png

If this is not the planet, we have two options left:

1.) this a 30 AU wide object in the star system
or
2.) this is the pattern of the distorted mirror(s) of the JWST.

Option 1.) cannot be true, because the planet should be 1 pixel wide, so - as I see it - I necessarily upscaled the form and pattern of a JWST mirror.

There is no "exoplanet image" at all, just a distorted and multiplied one pixel light source.

[SevenSpheres]

If this is not the planet, we have two options left:

1.) this a 30 AU wide object in the star system
or
2.) this is the pattern of the distorted mirror(s) of the JWST.

No. It is an image of the infrared light emitted by the exoplanet HIP 65426 b, which appears as a blob rather than a single pixel due to how the telescope works. This is stated in the NASA article. No one has implied that it is a distorted image of JWST's mirror. You're making that up.

There is no "exoplanet image" at all, just a distorted and multiplied one pixel light source.

If that's the definition of "image" you choose to use, then:

• we don't have any images of exoplanets, even those discovered by "direct imaging"
• we didn't have images of Pluto until Hubble observed it in the 1990s
• we don't have images of any other trans-Neptunian object
• we don't have images of most of the stars you can see in the night sky with your own eyes!

[john71]

No. It is an image of the infrared light emitted by the exoplanet HIP 65426 b, which appears as a blob rather than a single pixel due to how the telescope works.

OK. How can a blob have asymmetric patterns? Where does the asymmetric information come from?

no upscale public.jpg

[SevenSpheres]

OK. How can a blob have asymmetric patterns? Where does the asymmetric information come from?

viewtopic.php?p=159010#p159010

[john71]

OK. How can a blob have asymmetric patterns? Where does the asymmetric information come from?

viewtopic.php?p=159010#p159010

The article says: "The bar shapes in the NIRCam images are artifacts of the telescope’s optics, not objects in the scene."

I'm not talking about the bar shapes, so these are not artifacts.

[SevenSpheres]

No one is talking about the diffraction spikes.

No telescope is perfect, and no telescope currently can resolve exoplanets. You're free to define "image" to exclude unresolved images if you want to, but don't expect other people to start using your definition, and consider the implications it may have.

Let's end this discussion here, okay?

[Gurren Lagann]

I suggest moving this conversation into a separate thread (this post inclusive) and then lock it, while maintaining this thread unlocked for the upscaled textures.