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

[contrarian]

It assumes the BBT is correct.

There is clearly a hot debate on the BBT. Here are some comments from a cosmologist as to why there is such debate, based on JWST data :

“The early universe was bathed in a thick fog of neutral hydrogen,” explained Roberto Maiolino, a team member from the University of Cambridge and University College London. “Most of this haze was lifted in a process called reionization, which was completed about one billion years after the big bang. GS-z13-1 is seen when the universe was only 330 million years old, yet it shows a surprisingly clear, telltale signature of Lyman-alpha emission that can only be seen once the surrounding fog has fully lifted. This result was totally unexpected by theories of early galaxy formation and has caught astronomers by surprise.”

Looks like some serious problems with the "original" BBT. Not up to the data it appears.

NASA’s Webb Sees Galaxy Mysteriously Clearing Fog of Early Universe - NASA Science

Using the unique infrared sensitivity of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, researchers can examine ancient galaxies to probe secrets of the early universe.

science.nasa.gov

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Some of the things that have not made sense to me about the first few hundred million years of the BBT have to do with the assumptions that the CMBR is the photons released by excited hydrogen dropping to a lower energy state and that these photons somehow survived the "hydrogen fog" that resulted and still stream through space, today instead of being absorbed before "cosmic dawn". IF those photons were not absorbed, then why would the photons of the first stars be adsorbed?

I suppose that theorists can play games with the wavelengths to get some photons absorbed and others allowed to flow freely. But, it that is what they are doing, they need to do a lot better job of explaining how they think that happened.

 

[Helio]

“The early universe was bathed in a thick fog of neutral hydrogen,” explained Roberto Maiolino, a team member from the University of Cambridge and University College London. “Most of this haze was lifted in a process called reionization,...

Yes.

"...which was completed about one billion years after the big bang."

Note it states "completed", which was about 1 Gyrs, or likely sooner. But it began much earlier when the first stars formed. Their emissions caused surround neutral H2 to begin ionizing. Full ionization isn't required.

GS-z13-1 is seen when the universe was only 330 million years old, yet it shows a surprisingly clear, telltale signature of Lyman-alpha emission that can only be seen once the surrounding fog has fully lifted. This result was totally unexpected by theories of early galaxy formation and has caught astronomers by surprise.”

They don't say "all theories". The range of theories dealing with the period prior to complete Reionization are likely very many. The Webb will help falsify many of these theories and bring favor to numerous others. But, I doubt the Webb will be able to give the full picture. It's too small.

Prior to the Webb, one simple prediction was obvious -- there would be many hyperbolic headlines indicating one demise or another within BBT. Yet, a better prediction is that the observations will support the BBT, though some tweaking is inevitable given our poor knowledge of the actual formation processes required to form Pop III stars of large but indeterminate sizes, and when.

 

[Helio]

Some of the things that have not made sense to me about the first few hundred million years of the BBT have to do with the assumptions that the CMBR is the photons released by excited hydrogen dropping to a lower energy state and that these photons somehow survived the "hydrogen fog" that resulted and still stream through space, today instead of being absorbed before "cosmic dawn". IF those photons were not absorbed, then why would the photons of the first stars be adsorbed?

So the question unanswered is when did the first stars likely began? This answer has only been found in numerous hypothetical models. The amount of anisotropy is known from about z = 1100, but how long did it take the gas (H & He), which opposes collapse as it heats, to collapse into a star? I think there has been a wide range since the earlier time when it was held it would be impossible.

 

[contrarian]

Yet, a better prediction is that the observations will support the BBT, though some tweaking is inevitable given our poor knowledge of the actual formation processes.........

Clearly there are a number of variations on the theory coming out with the new data - it depends on who is commenting. Nobody knows what it all boils down to yet. Agreement for a grand theory accepted by all seems rather unlikely.

The only thing which is not open to debate? It needs tweaking.

 

[Helio]

The only thing which is not open to debate? It needs tweaking.

Right. This has been true since its inception in 1927. It took about 4 decades before most scientists found it worthy to lead the way, but that way always came with dark horizons. Galileo was first to push back the closest horizon. The list is long for all those who helped extend the subsequent next horizon. The Webb gives us data to move it even more, but it will not be enough, IMO.

 

[contrarian]

The Webb gives us data to move it even more, but it will not be enough, IMO.

Webb certainly has shaken the boat up. And I agree that its data will not be enough, and it is doubtful that there will ever be a means of obtaining data which tells the whole story. Puny humans clearly have limitations on their ability to understand the universe and all its various mechanizations.

 

[Harry Costas]

There is no way the universe is 13.8 billion years old.
When we have massive structures out there that take trillions of years just to travel across from one side of the observable universe to the other side.

 

[Gibsense]

The early universe was bathed in a thick fog of neutral hydrogen,” explained Roberto Maiolino, a team member from the University of Cambridge and University College London. “Most of this haze was lifted in a process called reionization, which was completed about one billion years after the big bang. GS-z13-1 is seen when the universe was only 330 million years old, yet it shows a surprisingly clear, telltale signature of Lyman-alpha emission that can only be seen once the surrounding fog has fully lifted. This result was totally unexpected by theories of early galaxy formation and has caught astronomers by surprise.”

The Red shift is calculated by space stretching, but this is added to by the shape of space, i.e the shape of the universe. The effect is similar to the appearance of objects as they approach a black hole - they get redder.
The galaxy is then closer in comparison to the BB. I have two AIs working on the model, and this aspect they both agree is to be expected. The major problem outstanding that is stopping publication is the CMB anisotropies, but we are working on this. Unfortunately, I seem to have confused things in the forum by posting too many spin-off hypotheses

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Gibsense
You are saying that the BB happened.

 

[Harry Costas]

This paper is an interesting read.

[ETG] Early Type Galaxies

The massive ETG evolution presented in this work is consistent with recent advancements in stellar and galaxy evolution, and is derived entirely without priors or constraints from the CMB. Yet, it emerges as a non-negligible source of CMB foreground contamination. Even in our most conservative estimates, massive ETGs account for 1.4% up to the full present-day CMB energy density.

[Submitted on 7 May 2025]

The Impact of Early Massive Galaxy Formation on the Cosmic Microwave Background​

Eda Gjergo, Pavel Kroupa

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies, corrected for foreground effects, form the foundation of cosmology and support the Big Bang model. A previously overlooked foreground component is the formation of massive early-type galaxies (ETGs), which can no longer be ignored, particularly in light of JWST's detection of massive, evolved systems at extreme redshifts (z > 13). The rapid formation of massive ETGs has been advocated in galaxy evolution studies for decades, and recent evidence has compelled even proponents of hierarchical mass assembly to acknowledge the fact that massive ETGs evolve quickly. Constraints from chemical evolution are particularly stringent. Without both intense star formation and a top-heavy galaxy-wide initial mass function of stars (IMF), it is difficult to reconcile stellar population synthesis models with the high metallicity and abundance patterns of alpha elements. We infer from previous studies that the progenitor cloud of each massive ETG must have had a radius of approximately 400 kpc. Comparing this value to the average present-day separation of massive ETGs, their formation may have occurred around 15 < z < 20. We consider this epoch of formation in a flat-LCDM cosmological context, incorporating the known and necessary properties of massive ETGs. Such properties are encapsulated independently by the integrated galaxy-wide IMF (IGIMF) theory. The massive ETG evolution presented in this work is consistent with recent advancements in stellar and galaxy evolution, and is derived entirely without priors or constraints from the CMB. Yet, it emerges as a non-negligible source of CMB foreground contamination. Even in our most conservative estimates, massive ETGs account for 1.4% up to the full present-day CMB energy density.

 

[Astraeus]

I can't help but question the foundational assumptions at play here. Why do we assert a specific timeline for the entire universe? What exactly is the CMB? How do we derive distance from redshift? How do we derive time from redshift? And how do we reconcile space supposedly expanding while we continue to detect ancient light across vast distances?

These aren’t side questions — they cut straight to the core of our cosmological model.

Light can shift simply by passing through a pane of glass. Yet our current redshift interpretations assume the only factor at play is distance through expanding space. That’s a startling simplification. We know space is not empty — it’s structured with gas, plasma, gravity wells, and cosmic filaments. Despite this, standard theory largely treats redshift as a clean function of expansion alone. That strikes me as incredibly shallow.

I'm not suggesting we abandon redshift as a metric — it's an incredibly valuable tool. But we need to untangle it from the assumptions that make it vulnerable. It's increasingly clear that our standard method of deriving distance from redshift is not just limited — it's insufficient. We owe it to the data, and to the integrity of our models, to confront that.

Before positing extreme, speculative models of rapid galaxy evolution to reconcile these observations, we should first confront the assumptions that led us here. We should have done this before introducing dark matter and dark energy — but we didn’t. And here we are.

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello

Astraeus​

What is your basic question?
CMB assumes the BBT is correct.
There is no evidence to prove the BBT is correct.
There is so-called questionable evidence that supports the BBT.

As for the expanding universe, that's another issue.