'Einstein ring' snapped by James Webb Space Telescope is most distant gravitationally lensed object ever seen

"Photos snapped by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) have revealed the farthest-ever example of an "Einstein ring." The record-breaking halo of warped light, which is a whopping 21 billion light-years away, is unusually perfect and surrounds a mysteriously dense galaxy."

My note. The 21 Gly distance from Earth, likely needs some clarification. Using Ned Wright calculator and z=2.0, the light time distance is 10.405 Gly, the comoving radial distance is nearly 17.199 Gly distance. Space way out there must be expanding faster than c velocity too :) https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html
 
The James Webb Space Telescope has snapped a stunning image of a perfectly formed Einstein ring, which is also the most distant gravitationally lensed object ever detected.

'Einstein ring' snapped by James Webb Space Telescope is most distant gravitationally lensed object ever seen : Read more
What is the z value at 21 Glyrs? Using Ned Wright's calculator, I only get a z = 3 for the comoving radial distance. Am I doing this wrong? Calling Rod. :)

I see you posted while I was typing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
What is the z value at 21 Glyrs? Using Ned Wright's calculator, I only get a z = 3 for the comoving radial distance. Am I doing this wrong? Calling Rod. :)

I see you posted while I was typing.
Yes, *doing this wrong* :) I get using z=3.0 which is the default that my browser brings up, "The comoving radial distance, which goes into Hubble's law, is 6481.7 Mpc or 21.141 Gly." so 21.141 billion light years and the shorter distance, light time is "The light travel time was 11.550 Gyr."

I had some discussion with Sky & Telescope recently on this, most just refer to the light-time distance or look back distance. Discussing comoving radial distances in cosmology can confuse some and starts to bring up things like space expanding faster than c velocity too.
 
Is the observation length equal to the object's distance to ring? If we moved 10% closer to the ring, would we see the same image as now? Or would the image be at a different distance? Does the ring have a mirror like quality? Angle in....angle out?

Or can you process the depth behind the ring with DSP? Sorta like selecting depth you wish to see, by "un-rolling" it from the ring?

Are we looking at a focal point?...or are we looking at a focal line?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Yes, *doing this wrong* :) I get using z=3.0 which is the default that my browser brings up,
Perhaps it retains the last user's entry, which may have been my entry of 3. It was not 3 when I went there.

"The comoving radial distance, which goes into Hubble's law, is 6481.7 Mpc or 21.141 Gly." so 21.141 billion light years and the shorter distance, light time is "The light travel time was 11.550 Gyr."
So what is the actual redshift value we should have here? I would expect something greater than 12 to be the most distant object. Is there 21Glyr figure not too small?
I had some discussion with Sky & Telescope recently on this, most just refer to the light-time distance or look back distance. Discussing comoving radial distances in cosmology can confuse some and starts to bring up things like space expanding faster than c velocity too.
IMO, distance is important and should be expressed in an actual estimated distance -- as if you borrowed my magic wand, froze the universe into a static universe, then stepped off the distance. The other "distances" may have utility, but not for the public, like me.
 
Is the observation length equal to the object's distance to ring? If we moved 10% closer to the ring, would we see the same image as now? Or would the image be at a different distance? Does the ring have a mirror like quality? Angle in....angle out?

Or can you process the depth behind the ring with DSP? Sorta like selecting depth you wish to see, by "un-rolling" it from the ring?
"Is the observation length equal to the object's distance to ring?"

My understanding is that the diameter used is determined based upon the distance used from Earth. Similar for other targets like M1 Crab nebula and its size using the distance. However, converting the cosmological distances using the redshift metric established for GR based upon FLRW, can get dicey when the angular size distance starts being looked at, the 1 arcsecond to kpc size seen in those calculators. As redshifts get larger, some object diameters can get dicey for the distances used based upon redshifts. Some discussed briefly this issue in BB on the forums, but I see very little on the topic.
 
Ok, but Ned's allows whatever Ho you want.
Helio, keep in mind there are a number of cosmology calculators out now. H0 and z are inputs that can be changed along with some other parameters. They are based upon GR metric for expanding space using the famous FLRW math. The distances presented are based upon input values like H0 or z that can change quite a bit.
 
Helio, keep in mind there are a number of cosmology calculators out now. H0 and z are inputs that can be changed along with some other parameters. They are based upon GR metric for expanding space using the famous FLRW math. The distances presented are based upon input values like H0 or z that can change quite a bit.
Right, and I assume most calculators treat those parameters as variables that the user can change. Do you find their results vary any if the same parameter values are used?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
For some who are following this discussion, earlier I read about JWST-ER1. I share some of my notes here, that can add to the fun and confusion :)

Ref - A massive compact quiescent galaxy at z=2 with a complete Einstein ring in JWST imaging, https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.07969, 14-Sep-2023. “One of the surprising results from HST was the discovery that many of the most massive galaxies at z~2 are very compact, having half-light radii of only 1-2 kpc. The interpretation is that massive galaxies formed inside-out, with their cores largely in place by z~2 and approximately half of their present-day mass added later through minor mergers. Here we present a compact, massive, quiescent galaxy at zphot=1.94 +0.13/−0.17 with a complete Einstein ring. The ring was found in the JWST COSMOS-Web survey and is produced by a background galaxy at zphot=2.98 +0.42/−0.47. Its 1.54" diameter provides a direct measurement of the mass of the "pristine" core of a massive galaxy, observed before mixing and dilution of its stellar population during the 10 Gyr of galaxy evolution between z=2 and z=0. We find a mass of Mlens=6.5 +3.7/−1.5×10^11 Msun within a radius of 6.6 kpc. The stellar mass within the same radius is Mstars=1.1 +0.2/−0.3×10^11 Msun for a Chabrier initial mass function (IMF), and the fiducial dark matter mass is Mdm=2.6 +1.6/−0.7×10^11 Msun. Additional mass is needed to explain the lensing results, either in the form of a higher-than-expected dark matter density or a bottom-heavy IMF.” [My note, observations like this from JWST appear to indicate problems for BB cosmology and how such galaxies formed along with formation time scales needed. Using Ned Wrigth cosmology calculator (https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html), z=1.94, “The age at redshift z was 3.416 Gyr.”, light time distance = “The light travel time was 10.306 Gyr.” Also, “The angular size distance DA is 1762.9 Mpc or 5.7498 Gly. This gives a scale of 8.547 kpc/". My notes, using 1.54 arcsecond angular size as reported and radius = 21500 LY, this yields a diameter = 43000 LY or 1.318385985E+04 pc so 13.18 kpc diameter. Applying 8.547 kpc/” scale to 1.54” = 13.162 kpc. Using 3.16E+9 pc light time distance and 1.54 arcsecond size, I get 23.593 kpc diameter. Using 1.54 arcsecond size and 1.8E+9 pc distance = 13.4390 kpc diameter. Some of these larger redshift galaxies could be larger than BB expanding universe model calculates comparing with the angular size distance and calculated 1 arcsecond size scale. Using this calculator, https://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php, and z=1.94, 1" = 8.635518 kpc and multiply by 1.54 = 13.3 kpc diameter.]
 
Let me see if I have this right.....as we go back in time, the universe expands. So....our universe is now condensed?

Why is the expanding space concept considered a present or future occurrence? We have not seen any shifts like that for billions of years.

Pardon my ignorance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Let me see if I have this right.....as we go back in time, the universe expands. So....our universe is now condensed?

Why is the expanding space concept considered a present or future occurrence? We have not seen any shifts like that for billions of years.

Pardon my ignorance.
Good question Classical Motion. I am not a cosmology expert, full disclosure here :) From what I understand using cosmology calculators comparing values obtained for different redshifts reported, here is an example. Objects with redshifts of 2.0 as seen from Earth today, Ned Wright calculator shows "The age at redshift z was 3.317 Gyr." That indicates the object(s) appeared early in the evolutionary history for the universe, only a bit more than 3 billion years after the BB event and the CMBR appears as light even earlier, perhaps 380,000 years after BB. The Universe size then was much smaller than where we are at today, said to be 13.8 billion years later. There is more than 10 billion years of expansion that has taken place in the model. Concerning the future of the expanding universe, gets into other topics like will the universe expand forever and cool to absolute zero or a big crunch way down the road.
 
FYI. After working with cosmology calculators and reading reports like this with redshifts and arcsecond measurements disclosed, I find the GR math for expanding space and understanding distances using the redshifts reported - elegant. Without such GR math, I see no other model to disclose distances and sizes in cosmology as we see here on Earth. Do I think the BB model has some problems? Yes. Others are pretty good defenders of the Big Bang on the forums, example Helio and some.
 
Thanks guys. I knew long ago in an astronomy class I would not fit in it. In my opinion when people think of distance, they think it's there. Because when we look at distance on earth, the distance is at present time. And it is there.

But astronomy is "archeology". The study of the past. A much longer past. Because of distance and c, there is no way to detect the present universe......even the locals.

We have no idea where those points of light are now. How they have changed, or if they still exist.

And all those composited points have time stamps. A times composite.

Our present position, and the past star's position and past time of emission, gives us our current star pattern. Can we reason such a singular time pattern? With no other patterns to compare.

Now add expanding space to it. Just for color.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
  • Like
Reactions: Classical Motion
Let's say space is expanding. Why would the matter in the space expand with it? Is space sticky? When space expands, does the volume of an object expand with it? Or just the distance between objects.

I have understood, that relatively speaking, there is a lot of space in atoms and molecules. Are the atoms in the very fast light, the same size as our atoms?
 
If the universe is 13.7 billion ys/o
how could any light that arrives here have traveled further than 13.7 billion light years?
I understand how objects could be much further away than 13.7 billion light years now, but how could we possibly see them (with light) already?
The speed of light is the linchpin of relativity.
Lensing reconverges light, but that light stll travels at light speed.
Wouldn't lensing see the far object at the distance it was from the lensing object at the time it departed the lensing object?
That plus the distance from us to the lensing object would be the whole traversal time/distance.
How could that be greater than 13.7 billion light years?

Call me thick,
Pls explain (in simple language).
 
Let's say space is expanding. Why would the matter in the space expand with it?
IMO it doesn’t. But, even Dr. Joe says otherwise. DE presents the idea of a force acting on all of space causing it to expand. But the force that holds planets around a star, for instance, are far, far greater, so one should look at the net force to determine the dynamics. The force that holds things, say rocks, together are even greater.
 
Last edited:
If the universe is 13.7 billion ys/o
how could any light that arrives here have traveled further than 13.7 billion light years?
If light had an infinite speed you‘d be right. This is a common mistake because we only experience light to have infinite speed. Galileo experimented in measuring its speed ( lanterns on hills) but he realized it was too fast to measure. Oddly, since he discovered the moons of Jupiter and their positions and times, he could have discovered the value of c. Interestingly, Roemer stumbled into this when he puzzled over those moons’ time variations with our relative orbital position. He realized the time delay on where those moons should be positioned was due to our change in distance with them, thus giving him the ability to calculate light’s speed.

Imagine you’re an ant walking around a balloon. How long would it take for you to go around it? Now, consider how much longer it would take for you to circumnavigate if the balloon were expanding.

Btw, the ant would eventually go around an expanding balloon, which is why we see light that comes from regions expanding faster than light. This is because as the ant moves forward it encounters a slower speed region. [ There is a limit to this, however, based on the ants speed and expansion rate.]

An easier way to see this is by replacing the balloon with a bungee cord. Nail down one end and pull the other at, say, one inch per second. In the middle of the cord the speed will be half that speed, so as the ant marches toward the nailed end, it will encounter slower and slower speeds even if it travels at less than 1 inch per sec. The key is to look at only the cord‘s speed the ant encounters.

There are articles that explain this better.
 
Last edited:
The ant (light) has a fixed rate of progress.

As a side comment, if the balloon expands fast enough the ant can never circumscribe the balloon.
If the circumference doubles every given period of time. It becomes analogous to Zeno's paradox.
Given a nonzero starting circumference 2 times greater than the ant's traversal rate for the given period of time. (one might shave that down with continuous expansion)

Odd thought, perhaps prior to posed inflation, did the light circumnavigate the then universe maybe multiple times? Maybe it was so chaotic that light was reabsorbed before that?

We see stars in their position in the past, in theory up to 13.7 b yrs ago.
We don’t calculate their current position based the projected expansion of space-time (as far as i know).
That would measure the stretching space after the ant had traversed it nonstretched.

If the big bang is correct light cannot be older (traveled further) than 13.7 b (light) years.

Still don't get it.
 
Regarding the question about whether matter expands along with space:

It seems odd to me that this is even a question, at least among the people who believe that the whole universe expanded from something smaller than an atom (as measured with today's dimensions). If matter did not expand along with space, then everything would need to still be smaller than that atom-sized space that once contained it all (in theory - the BB Theory).

So, yes, we need to expect things that have space "in them" to expand.

And, further, the question about whether space is "sticky" is also worth attention. If space had expanded and left matter in its initial location, then the matter would still be clumped together too tightly to be anything but a black hole. The BBT gets matter defused by spreading it along with the space it assumes is expanding.

The "sticky" question is really more about "how sticky". And, the measured speed of light seems to have something to do with that. For matter to move through space (rather than along with space), it is limited to the speed of light. Even if space takes off at much greater relative velocities between different parts of itself, matter cannot resist that motion at anything more than the speed of light.

Of course, the speed of light depends on the rate of time passage, which most theorists seem to take as invariable, except near massive objects, where it slows down. And, that doesn't seem to be taken into account in the BBT, where all the mass in the universe is in a much smaller volume than today, but we don't think time was going slower. One problem is addressing "slower than what", since time in all the universe would be "slowed" and there is nobody outside of the universe with a steady watch to use as a reference. But, the thought process opens a big can of worms about how fast things that we see at huge look-back times might be running at different speeds than we expect.

One of the things that really bothers me about the BBT is that it assumes that the speed of light will always be measured to be the same as we measure it today, even though the measuring devices must be much smaller then than now to even fit into the hypothesized early universe. The theory assumes that light could traverse the early universe from "end-to-end" (whatever the "end" of a universe is) quickly so that the universe stayed homogeneous until it expanded by a huge amount. But, if miniscule observers (who would also expand) were measuring the speed of light with miniscule yard sticks in that early universe and still getting the same number of meters per second we get today, wouldn't they have been measuring their universe to be immense, in their miniscule units, so that it would have looked to them to be as large as our view of our universe today, and thus, for them to measure light being able to traverse their entire universe, they would have had to measure it going faster than we do now in terms of their meters per their seconds.

So, to me, either the "horizon problem" of causality in the early universe is not really solved, or the speed of light would not have remained invariant through the period of rapid inflation postulated in the BBT.

It is inconsistencies like that which make me think the BBT is not self-consistent in the way that the theorists are imagining it.
 

TRENDING THREADS