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?

 

[Helio]

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.

It makes for better headlines when there are hints BBT is wrong due to a new JWST discovery. But if you look deeper you'll find that it may not be mainstream. There has always been a lot of wiggle room on what happened between the CMBR and the beginning of star formation leading to Reionization. The JWST was built to give us data to better develop models. The data so far doesn't do damage to the BBT itself, but only those models which favored a slower process.

Keep in mind that the redshift also tells us the volume ratio of the universe. The CMBR has a redshift of about 1100. As expansion continued, at some point, the first protostars formed and they would, on average, all be much closer to one another, perhaps 4 or 5x closer. This proximity along with their, apparently, very large mass, would cause greater gravitational entanglement, allowing for faster galaxy formation, IMO.

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.

It's not my opinion. Do you need reference papers that give numerous estimates on how, without any "metals", a star can form only if the mass is great enough. The debate seems to be how massive, with some estimates over 1000 suns, IIRC. I've not followed this much, admittedly.

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.

Have you found any models that show this? Don't forget the ideal gas law. As H and He collapse they get hotter and will then expand, preventing any star formation, especially a black hole.

To get any cloud to collapse and form a star, even today, has taken a lot of science to explain how it could happen. SN can compress clouds, but this assumes something else produced the stars to allow SN. Supersonic flows within clouds are also seen as ways clouds can collapse.

The "metals" allow protostars to dump their heat and allow further collapse so that a core can begin fusion. So with just H & He, it takes much more mass concentration to allow necessary collapse.

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.

Do you have any reference papers on how a small star (low mass) can form with only H & He?

 

[Helio]

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.

Right, there are a lot of dynamics at work. Perhaps their closer proximity for an early universe and their much greater mass than normal stars were enough to form the first protogalaxies. The JWST may indeed provide some answers.

I also wonder whether black holes can make heavier elements in their accretion disk phenomena.

Perhaps, especially in the early universe with much greater densities and dynamics.

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.

It will be interesting to see the Webb snag an AGN for an early galaxy.

 

[contrarian]

Do you have any reference papers on how a small star (low mass) can form with only H & He?

All of what you are posting is open to debate, and I am not going on with it endlessly.

Like you, I have not kept up with some of this, but there are variations in models now that these early galaxies have been found.

I have no interest in searching for references about low mass stars forming at any time of the universe. All we know for certain is that they have been forming since the BB, at least that is what my reading says. Our sun is about 98% H and He. Not much in the way of "metals".

There is no proof to demonstrate one needs metals to form low mass stars.

End of story.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

It sort of annoys me that astronomers insist on calling element such as carbon and oxygen and nitrogen "metals" and then talking about them all as if they behave the same.

In particular, the statements that "metals" are necessary to make small stars seems like an oversimplification of the energy radiation issue for collapsing gas clouds. What exactly does it take in the way of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium for stars on the order of red dwarfs to form by gravitational collapse? And, if there were really huge numbers of huge stars going supernova in humongous gas clouds, why couldn't compression of smaller pockets of gas between those supernovas create smaller stars?

Also, the argument that everything was closer together at higher redshift should also mean that energy radiated from one collapsing area should be heating adjacent gases, slowing or preventing their collapses.

So, logically, I am seeing conjectures that seem to be struggling to be hypotheses, not fully developed theories that take the counter effects together with the conceptualized effects to show what dominates.

And, I am still wondering about our concepts of "speed of formation" under those conditions, where there is a much higher mass concentration than there is now. GRT would suggest that time would pass more slowly due to the mass proximity. But, more slowly than what? There doesn't seem to be an unaffected clock available to make the measurement. Which, to me, suggests that maybe we are not perceiving the timing correctly to begin with.

We actually know so little that we are unconstrained in our imagination, and seem to struggle to even be consistent in our imagined scenarios.

 

[Helio]

There is no proof to demonstrate one needs metals to form low mass stars.

There may be some confusion in the expectation that there a Pop III red dwarfs. Here is a paper that models behavior of low mass stars that emerge out of the accretion disks of the Pop III massive stars. The disk, they say, will contain some metals and dust, allowing for the necessary cooling, no doubt, to form low mass stars.

Thus, as I mentioned before, the discussion isn't about, IMO, true Pop III low mass stars, but smaller mass stars formed and are regarded as "metal poor" stars (Pop II.5 ). These stars would necessarily be very old today, so "where are they?"

Their modeling suggests very few are around..."The required number of dwarf galaxies to find one PopIII survivor is estimated in less than ten at < 100 kpcfor the tip of redgiant stars (corresponding to mV ∼ 20).Assuming no Pop III survivor has been detected, notnpop3 = 10 but npop3 = 1 is favored, consistent with thecurrent observations of the Milky Way. The all sky survey of nearby dwarf galaxies are highly demanded for thedetection of Pop III survivors and refines the constrainton the low mass Pop III IMF."

 

[Helio]

It sort of annoys me that astronomers insist on calling element such as carbon and oxygen and nitrogen "metals" and then talking about them all as if they behave the same.

Perhaps relative to the poor efficiency of H2 cooling, the efficiency differences of the others aren't that important. Just a guess.

In particular, the statements that "metals" are necessary to make small stars seems like an oversimplification of the energy radiation issue for collapsing gas clouds. What exactly does it take in the way of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium for stars on the order of red dwarfs to form by gravitational collapse?

Stellar physics, what little I've read, makes it clear that "metals" are necessary to dump heat in order to allow collapse, except when in the case of heavy masses.

But lower mass stars, a little smaller than the Sun, may obtain a small amount of metals in the accretion disk of a Pop III star. [See the paper ref. in my prior post.]

And, if there were really huge numbers of huge stars going supernova in humongous gas clouds, why couldn't compression of smaller pockets of gas between those supernovas create smaller stars?

Yes. That's far more likely than not. Smaller "metal poor" stars can form.

Also, the argument that everything was closer together at higher redshift should also mean that energy radiated from one collapsing area should be heating adjacent gases, slowing or preventing their collapses.

That's an interesting point. Their radiation, IIRC, were responsible for Reionization. So would reionization not change the star forming dynamics, too? Maybe.

So, logically, I am seeing conjectures that seem to be struggling to be hypotheses, not fully developed theories that take the counter effects together with the conceptualized effects to show what dominates.

You are setting the bar pretty high for around here.

And, I am still wondering about our concepts of "speed of formation" under those conditions, where there is a much higher mass concentration than there is now. GRT would suggest that time would pass more slowly due to the mass proximity. But, more slowly than what?

I doubt that there is much of a time differential to effect general theories for even massive stellar formation given their large radii. For the universe as a whole, I don't think the higher density has any effect on the rate of time.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Just saying that there seems to be an awful lot conjectured to be happening in a couple hundred million years, compared to the pace of things astronomical around here these days.

And, if the rate of passage of time is not constant, that could be used to "explain" a lot of things, including red shifts, as well as the speed of formation of things that are massive and complicated.

Theorists make a lot of "simplifying" assumptions in order to make their analyses tractable. Only when observations prove beyond doubt that "things aren't that simple" do the theorists shed the assumption and go with more complicated models.

 

[Helio]

Just saying that there seems to be an awful lot conjectured to be happening in a couple hundred million years, compared to the pace of things astronomical around here these days.

And you’re surprised? This is the place where the map says, “Here there be dragons.” I doubt the Webb is capable of dispelling more than a few of those rascals. The GMT (Giant Magellan Telescope), and other dragon slayers coming our way, might do wonders here.

Theorists make a lot of "simplifying" assumptions in order to make their analyses tractable. Only when observations prove beyond doubt that "things aren't that simple" do the theorists shed the assumption and go with more complicated models.

Well stated. The simplifications often come when data is lacking.