Where is the third red dot?

foghorn

Valued Senior Member
This picture is sending me dotty.
Spot the third red dot.

There is a third red dot but it has a white dot at its centre and no white starlike surrounding like the other two. But, I may have the wrong two to start with?
My arrows.
Picture and quote from here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02429-4

A JWST photograph of the galaxy cluster Abell 2744 includes three images of the same red object
JWT.jpg
The object’s deep red colour suggests it existed when the Universe was less than 700 million years old. Image: A JWST photograph of the galaxy cluster Abell 2744 includes three images of the same red object. Credit: L. J. Furtak et al./Astrophys. J.

https://jwstfeed.com/PostView/FeedPost?ci=1691085912_d41586-023-02429-4GEN
 
The only reason I feel this is the same image is that the upper right corner matches (get dizzy trying to compare the rest).
The objects truly have to be enlarged to have enough detail for matches. I would never have spotted the one designated QSO1b.
_
Thanks for finding that. It does look as though it the right picture. I will now go cross-eyed checking that it is.
 
Thanks for finding that. It does look as though it the right picture. I will now go cross-eyed checking that it is.
Red usually means very old as the light is redshifted or dust.

“The same object” probably means it has been split by gravitational lensing.

There are few lensed objects but cannot spot it.

I will get back to you!
 
The only reason I feel this is the same image is that the upper right corner matches (get dizzy trying to compare the rest).
Yes, it is the same picture.

Using the indicating boxes on your picture I found the spots on my picture and boxed them.
Ignore the 2 yellow arrows on my picture, I was wrong there.
I like these Einstein lensed pictures because I like to see if I can recognise how much surrounding area of something get repeated in another place in the picture.
With that in mind, there seems to be just the red dots themselves and nothing around them I can recognised as repeated.
I’m funny that way.
JWT.jpg
 
Yes, it is the same picture.

Using the indicating boxes on your picture I found the spots on my picture and boxed them.
Ignore the 2 yellow arrows on my picture, I was wrong there.
I like these Einstein lensed pictures because I like to see if I can recognise how much surrounding area of something get repeated in another place in the picture.
With that in mind, there seems to be just the red dots themselves and nothing around them I can recognised as repeated.
I’m funny that way.
View attachment 5541
Wow, never would have spotted that!
 
I am confused.
  1. What is the provenance of this pic? What is the description that leads you to the red dots?
  2. Why do you think it's the spherical objects in this pic that are lensed? I may be mistaken but I do believe that many of those thin arcs are lensed galaxies.
upload_2023-8-9_11-2-38.png
 
I am confused.
  1. What is the provenance of this pic? What is the description that leads you to the red dots?
  2. Why do you think it's the spherical objects in this pic that are lensed? I may be mistaken but I do believe that many of those thin arcs are lensed galaxies.
View attachment 5542
Where did I say the red dots are lensed?
I said ‘repeated’ when referring to the red dots.
I like these Einstein lensed pictures because I like to see if I can recognise how much surrounding area of something get repeated in another place in the picture.
With that in mind, there seems to be just the red dots themselves and nothing around them I can recognised as repeated.
 
I am confused. What is the provenance of this pic?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02429-4

What is the description that leads you to the red dots?

(1) A JWST photograph of the galaxy cluster Abell 2744 includes three images of the same red object.

(2) The object’s deep red colour suggests it existed when the Universe was less than 700 million years old.

(3) The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has seen what is probably a quasar from the early Universe.

Why do you think it's the spherical objects in this pic that are lensed? I may be mistaken but I do believe that many of those thin arcs are lensed galaxies.

Yes, there are other mirrored objects in the image besides the red quasar candidate. Like two of those that Foghorn had arrows pointing at, and two others I noticed but didn't see the point of mentioning (since they weren't occasions of the red object). Along with the three repeats of the JD1 object that is also marked in the Reddit version of the overall image:

https://www.reddit.com/r/jameswebbd...xtremely_red_compact_object_triply/?rdt=33756

One of the sources of the above image is this paper:

JWST UNCOVER: Extremely Red and Compact Object at zphot ≃ 7.6 Triply Imaged by A2744
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/acdc9d
_
 
Oh OK. The actual blurb is "three images of the same red object." So, not necessarily a "dot".

Here are some red objects:
upload_2023-8-9_12-5-37.png

upload_2023-8-9_12-6-0.png

upload_2023-8-9_12-6-26.png

I think they are using the word red to mean "reddened". i.e. anything that's more red-shifted than average.
 
I may have misunderstood. How can they be repeated if not due to lensing?
"Why do you think it's the spherical objects in this pic that are lensed? " was implying I was saying nothing else in the picture was lensed.
And, I use the word ‘repeated’ to mean an area that could be recognised as repeated without the “smearing” or distorting effect of lensing.

You guys don't have a photo editing software like Photoshop or Gimp?
I just dropped on on top of the other and then toggled the top layer.

Here they are side-by-side:
Show off. Besides, you have to squint at those pics to see the detail. lose detail zooming up those 'small' pics.
 
Last edited:
you have to squint at those pics to see the detail. lose detail zooming up those 'small' pics.
No. What you see in the thread is actually a shrunken thumbnail of the full pic. When you click on it you'll see the full size pic, which should have no additional compression from the original.

Your original:
upload_2023-8-9_13-2-18.png
My composite:
upload_2023-8-9_13-2-52.png



That being said, I've obvs stepped in half way through an ongoing discussion, and the specific goal is not clear to me, so I'll step back rather than muddy it.
 
Last edited:
No. What you see in the thread is actually a shrunken thumbnail of the full pic. When you click on it you'll see the full size pic, which should have no additional compression from the original.

Your original:
View attachment 5547
My composite:
View attachment 5548



That being said, I've obvs stepped in half way through an ongoing discussion, and the specific goal is not clear to me, so I'll step back rather than muddy it.
What! I have to go through all the trouble of clicking on a picture.
There's no "specific goal", as I said somewhere here, I just like seeing what recognisable areas of an Einstein rings picture I can see repeated.
When it was said there were three red dots in this picture, I thought that's a good place to see how much could be seen around each dot without distortion. To that end, with this pic, there's not a thing I recognise comparing around each dot.
Hold on. I'm clicking on those pics of yours and nothing is happening.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top