Cosmic miracle!' James Webb Space Telescope discovers the earliest galaxy ever seen

[Admin]

The James Webb Space Telescope has done it again, discovering the "mother of all early galaxies," a record-breaking distant object that existed just 280 billion years after the Big Bang.

Cosmic miracle!' James Webb Space Telescope discovers the earliest galaxy ever seen : Read more

 

[Harry Costas]

Whoever has read the image has made a mistake. Those galaxies are fully formed. Meaning it would be impossible for those galaxies to have been formed in 280 million years.
For some reason they are trying to fit the narrative to the BBT.

 

[rod]

Space.com reported, “This previous record galaxy has a redshift of z =14.32, while MoM z14 has a redshift of z = 14.44.” My note, 3D space is expanding about 2.4 x c where this object would be today (using default H0 in the cosmology calculator cited) where its comoving radial distance is nearly 34 Gly away from earth today. Then we have the problem mentioned in the report about metals found in the galaxy gas at this early period in the BB model. “The researchers were able to determine that MoM z14 is around 50 times smaller than the Milky Way. The team also measured emission lines from the galaxy, indicating the presence of elements like nitrogen and carbon.” What? The BB model requires only simple elements like H, He, and perhaps a bit of Li formed first in the beginning We could invoke past generations of stars or Population III stars here to reconcile such observations but presently, we do not see those past generations of stars or Population III stars shining brightly in the heavens Using a cosmology calculator and default H0 value - “It is now 13.722 Gyr since the Big Bang. The age at redshift z was 0.288 Gyr. The light travel time was 13.434 Gyr. The comoving radial distance, which goes into Hubble's law, is 10405.7 Mpc or 33.939 Gly.” Ref - https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html, using z=14.44.

 

[Helio]

The primary argument for building the JWST was to get us to a farther horizon and closer to the first stars.

The news of such an early galaxy is exciting but not unexpected for some, perhaps many.

The first stars: formation, properties, and impact

The first generation of stars, often called Population III (or Pop III), form from metal-free primordial gas at redshifts 30 and below. They dominate the cosmic star formation history until redshifts 15 to 20, at which point the formation of metal-enriched Pop II stars takes over. We review...

arxiv.org

 

[Helio]

. The team also measured emission lines from the galaxy, indicating the presence of elements like nitrogen and carbon.” What? The BB model requires only simple elements like H, He, and perhaps a bit of Li formed first in the beginning We could invoke past generations of stars or Population III stars here to reconcile such observations but presently, we do not see those past generations of stars or Population III stars shining brightly in the heavens

C, N, O and other elements are produced by massive supernovae. Pop III stars were very likely extremely massive and had very, very short life spans. The lack of these elements in spectra would be odd, IMO.

 

[rod]

Helio et al, I think Harry Costas has a point in post #2, "For some reason they are trying to fit the narrative to the BBT."

Population III stars have been invoked for BB model at least the past 50 years or so. Red dwarf stars were part of the early study into Population III stars because they live so long and astronomers expected to find some in our MW.

"Is there a way to know if any given red dwarf star could be a Population III remnant? So, Population III starts are thought to have been massive and therefore died out quickly. However, there must have been at least some red dwarfs, right? It seems inconceivable that there were absolutely no low mass stars in the entirety of the early universe, even if they were rare. In locally low density pockets, for example. Because red dwarfs last for ~10^12 years, they would still be around and still very young. Would we know it if we were looking at one? Presumably, the metal content would be telling. And if there's none, isn't that in itself strange? Isn't it very odd that not a single red dwarf is still around from that time despite their longevity?" ref -

https://www.reddit.com/r/askastronomy/comments/nl932c/is_there_a_way_to_know_if_any_given_red_dwarf

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/askastronomy/comments/nl932c/is_there_a_way_to_know_if_any_given_red_dwarf/?rdt=64059


Other more recent computer modeling likes Population III stars, perhaps 100,000 solar masses and appearing near redshift 30. 'The first stars may have held up to 100,000 times the mass of the sun', https://phys.org/news/2023-02-stars-held-mass-sun.html, Feb-23. ref - First emergence of cold accretion and supermassive star formation in the early universe, https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10263, 24-Jan-2023. "Recent numerical simulations have shown that the Pop III stars appear with masses of 𝑀 = 10–10^3 Msun at 𝑧 ~ 20-30… METHODS We perform a suite of cosmological simulations using the N-body + SPH code GADGET-3 (Springel 2005)."

Okay, BB modeling here must be flexible it seems like searching for abiogenesis on exoplanets and life out there somewhere among the stars

 

[Helio]

According to BBT, the universe was necessarily H and He only, discounting tiny amounts of Li and perhaps Be.

It took lots of work to figure out how any star could form from only H & He. The models finally found that if the stars were massive enough, then they could become the first stars (Pop III). Red dwarfs are not massive, so I don't see how they would be truly Pop III stars, but perhaps I'm wrong.

 

[contrarian]

According to BBT, the universe was necessarily H and He only, discounting tiny amounts of Li and perhaps Be.

Primordial black holes are also postulated to have formed very early after the BB (before or during the formation of H and He), and could have been the primary seeds of galaxy formation, avoiding any need for Pop. III stars in this regard.

These PBHs could have formed with a wide range of sizes, from galaxy forming SMBHs to very small ones, the latter possibly constituting all or a great deal of dark matter.

It all remains open to debate, and absolute evidence for these early events may never be found.

 

[Helio]

Primordial black holes are also postulated to have formed very early after the BB (before or during the formation of H and He), and could have been the primary seeds of galaxy formation, avoiding any need for Pop. III stars in this regard.

Only Pop III stars would produce the elements for normal stars. BHs only contribute concentrated mass, AFAIK, assuming they were around during this early time.

 

[contrarian]

Only Pop III stars would produce the elements for normal stars

All larger stars produce most of the natural elements that we know of, and they have been doing this for billions of years. These elements are made either from direct fusion events, or from core collapse SNs.

Black hole and/or neutron star mergers likely contribute some of the heavier elements like gold and platinum, etc. But these can also form from SNs.

I fail to see the significance or need for Pop III stars for anything that isn't made by smaller stars. Nucleosynthesis by stars of varying sizes is well established. And they do not have to be old stars. The blue giant that gave rise to SN 1987A is estimated to have been only 12 million years old.

Stellar nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Helio]

Black hole and/or neutron star mergers likely contribute some of the heavier elements like gold and platinum, etc. But these can also form from SNs.

In the early universe, I'm unsure if black hole mergers contribute much, even if they merge with neutron stars. Are there models that predict neturon "stars" would result from Pop III explosions? Perhaps. There may be too little to go on until more is learned about Pop III stars.

I fail to see the significance or need for Pop III stars for anything that isn't made by smaller stars.

Yes, but it took the Pop III stars to allow those smaller stars to pop into existence. Since very massive stars will have short lives, then it seems plausible that their (massive stars) element production might be quick enough to allow red dwarf masses to absorb enough of these heavier elements (i.e. metals) to allow their formation....maybe. Is this the logic for expecting very old red dwarfs? They wouldn't be Pop III but they would be close in age to them, so perhaps Pop II.5 (II.V?). Somehow I suspect the Pop I, II, and III will prove inadequate, just as Secchi's three type of stars became 70 types and subtypes (Canon, Pickering et. al).

I expect the JWST will have observations of this most distant horizon that will tweak the stellar physics of the stars, and thus galaxy formations. None of this is likely to phase the credibility of BBT.

Nucleosynthesis by stars of varying sizes is well established. And they do not have to be old stars. The blue giant that gave rise to SN 1987A is estimated to have been only 12 million years old.

Yes, but we're not talking about Pop I or Pop II stars.

 

[contrarian]

Yes, but it took the Pop III stars to allow those smaller stars to pop into existence.

What is the evidence for this? None. Smaller stars have been forming since the cosmic dawn, and cranking out lots of heavy elements by SNs. And they are still forming today, without Pop III stars.

SN 1987A rewrote the book on core collapse SNs. Before, they were thought only to occur from old red giants. That a star only 12 million years old could collapse clearly proves that early heavy elements do not need supermassive Pop III stars for their formation.

Pop III stars are a hypothesis to explain the existence of heavy metals in the early universe, and some suggest their black holes merged early to form SMBHs. There is no evidence for any of this, so it is not a fact from which to draw the conclusions you are making.

Current astrophysics tell us that the maximum mass for a stable star is about 150 SMs. Anything much larger will not persist for very long, or even form a star. Such a mass might even undergo direct collapse to a black hole without a SN.

Direct collapse black hole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is this the logic for expecting very old red dwarfs?

The logic for very old red dwarfs is their small size, and their very slow fusion rate. Their elemental composition could have been provided by standard SNs like we know of today.

They are expected to last for potentially trillions of years, and have almost certainly been forming for billions of years, just like all the other stars that we know are real.

Again, none of this relies on those hypothetical Pop III stars.

 

[Helio]

What is the evidence for this? None. Smaller stars have been forming since the cosmic dawn, and cranking out lots of heavy elements by SNs. And they are still forming today, without Pop III stars.

I assume you discount the BBT claim of only H and He in the early period. This prediction was found in the 1940s (Gamow and Alpher) and has never been refuted in any objective manner.

SN 1987A rewrote the book on core collapse SNs. Before, they were thought only to occur from old red giants. That a star only 12 million years old could collapse clearly proves that early heavy elements do not need supermassive Pop III stars for their formation.

The Type II Sn, as you mention, was not a surprise for a blue giant. Besides being visible to the naked eye, it was helpful in determining its distance since we could determine the speed of the spewed gases and their apparent size. Simple geometry confirms its distance and the number of years since it took place. It also helped tell the neutrino story since their arrival time is important to know their speed.

Pop III stars are a hypothesis to explain the existence of heavy metals in the early universe, and some suggest their black holes merged early to form SMBHs. There is no evidence for any of this, so it is not a fact from which to draw the conclusions you are making.

The JWST may help clarify this important issue, but I wouldn't bet against the BBT.

Current astrophysics tell us that the maximum mass for a stable star is about 150 SMs. Anything much larger will not persist for very long, or even form a star. Such a mass might even undergo direct collapse to a black hole without a SN.

Stars comprised of only H and He (ie Pop III) necessarily should be this large if not larger.

Direct collapse black hole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The logic for very old red dwarfs is their small size, and their very slow fusion rate. Their elemental composition could have been provided by standard SNs like we know of today.

They are expected to last for potentially trillions of years, and have almost certainly been forming for billions of years, just like all the other stars that we know are real.

Again, none of this relies on those hypothetical Pop III stars.

Right, because they came after the Pop III star formation period, most likely.

 

[contrarian]

I assume you discount the BBT claim of only H and He in the early period. This prediction was found in the 1940s (Gamow and Alpher) and has never been refuted in any objective manner.

I discount certain aspects of it. The recent data from the JWST might provide some evidence to support this. I keep reading about how the youngest galaxies (<300 mys) shouldn't be there based on BB theory, so there is a little more than speculation to question the absolutes of the "old" BBT. Not all of it is wrong, but apparently some of it is.

The Type II Sn, as you mention, was not a surprise for a blue giant.

Actually, it was a surprise, based on a lot of reading . Just one example :

"At the time, this was a surprise for a Type II supernova; astronomers expected a red supergiant, not a blue one. Now, however, it’s now accepted that blue supergiants are a normal progenitor for some supernovae."

| EarthSky

Supernova 1987A first appeared in earthly skies 30 years ago today. It was the closest observed supernova since 1604.

earthsky.org

Stars comprised of only H and He (ie Pop III) necessarily should be this large if not larger.

Based on what? Again, physics suggests such a mass of H and He in such a compact region should not exist as a star - too unstable. But you can have it this way if you like.

My tweak to the BBT on this is that such a mass would form a PBH (without SN), rather than a star with a superfast lifespan.

At any rate, none of this rules out smaller stars forming at the same time, and a lot more of them. And many could have been blue giant stars quickly creating all the metals one needs to meet the spectral data. No Pop III required.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

It seems odd to me that we would theorize that huge gas clouds could condense into huge Pop III stars and explode in vast numbers without slowing subsequent star formation in an early seed for a galaxy. I guess that people can hypothesize that the gas between the explosions could get compressed into new stars to keep the process going, but without the structure of a galaxy to hold the material in a limited space, it just seems as though this would be something that slowed things down rather than speed it up to the extent needed to make what we think we are now seeing with Webb.

I also wonder whether black holes can make heavier elements in their accretion disk phenomena. Considering the speeds that we measure for the polar jets, it seems they far exceed the speeds we have been able to achieve on Earth with our particle colliders that we use to try to make super-heavy elements. Is there any evidence of enhanced carbon or nitrogen in the polar jets, compared to what is (thought to be) sucked in from the outer accretion disk? Perhaps where the jets impinge on relatively stationary gases far above the poles of the black holes?