James Webb Space Telescope discovers 717 ancient galaxies that flooded the universe with 1st light

[Admin]

The James Webb Space Telescope has discovered hundreds of galaxies that existed when the universe was less than 600 million years old.

James Webb Space Telescope discovers 717 ancient galaxies that flooded the universe with 1st light : Read more

 

[rod]

"As early as 600 million years after the Big Bang, these very young galaxies flaunted complex structures and clusters of star formation, a new study reports. The study is part of an international collaboration called the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES), which gathered a month's worth of observations from two tiny patches in the sky: One in the Ursa Minor constellation and another in the direction of the Fornax cluster. Within this region were over 700 newly discovered young galaxies that reveal with the cosmos looked like in its earliest."

JADES is getting interesting. The Cosmos in its Infancy: JADES Galaxy Candidates at z > 8 in GOODS-S and GOODS-N, https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02468, 04-June-2023. "We present a catalog of 717 candidate galaxies at z>8 selected from 125 square arcminutes of NIRCam imaging as part of the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES)."

My observation. No metal free gas or the pristine gas from postulated BBN is seen that is said to fill the early universe, dust is reported in JADES paper and more study to show metallicity. Cosmology calculators show light-time of some 13 Gyr or a bit more for z=8.0 and age of universe at z=8, 0.646 Gyr. Some other discussions on forums about JADES too and metal content, https://forums.space.com/threads/ja...plex-organic-molecules-in-the-universe.61665/

 

[Atlan0001]

Still waiting to see the precursor Milky Way at 600 million years after the Big Bang and the Milky Way's whole evolutionary, revolutionary, light trail from there, then, to here, now.

I would be willing to bet if a ship could travel fast enough it would trail the Milky Way from here, now, clear to the horizon there, then, at a distance from the ship of about 10 to 13 billion-odd light years (oops a circling around). Or maybe it couldn't actually (so no bet). Probably it wouldn't, couldn't, hold . . . couldn't stay . . . the course, into such a tight, and ever tighter and tighter, turning curvature it would have to take into that vortex to keep the Milky Way's light time history trail of crumbs lined up in the rearview mirror. The ship would literally be tossed, thrown, sideways into gravity's outland infinity and out of the Milky Way's spacetime universe altogether into some other. Actually, where it would end up in any case.

 

[rod]

Still waiting to see the precursor Milky Way at 600 million years after the Big Bang and the Milky Way's whole evolutionary, revolutionary, light trail from there, then, to here, now.

I would be willing to bet if a ship could travel fast enough it would trail the Milky Way from here, now, clear to the horizon there, then, at a distance from the ship of about 10 to 13 billion-odd light years (oops a circling around). Or maybe it couldn't actually (so no bet). Probably it wouldn't, couldn't, hold . . . couldn't stay . . . the course, into such a tight, and ever tighter and tighter, turning curvature it would have to take into that vortex to keep the Milky Way's light time history trail of crumbs lined up in the rearview mirror. The ship would literally be tossed, thrown, sideways into gravity's outland infinity and out of the Milky Way's spacetime universe altogether into some other. Actually, where it would end up in any case.

"Still waiting to see the precursor Milky Way at 600 million years after the Big Bang and the Milky Way's whole evolutionary, revolutionary, light trail from there, then, to here, now."

Atlan0101, as I understand Big Bang cosmology, the large redshift *galaxies* are much smaller sizes and masses than M31 I see in my telescopes. The tiny evolved into the big over more than 13 Gyr in cosmology However, redshifts of 1.4 or larger, in GR math (cosmology calculators will demonstrate this), show space expanding faster than c velocity and comoving radial distances so far away, we cannot observe them today on Earth. Hence, we do not know how any of these *early tiny galaxies* evolved along their comoving radial distances (or even if any still exist out there, far, far away). Something I find commonly not pointed out to the public IMO, at least not clearly.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

My observation. No metal free gas or the pristine gas from postulated BBN is seen that is said to fill the early universe, dust is reported in JADES paper and more study to show metallicity.

That's not what these surveys were looking at. But the earlier cosmic background radiation is a flawless observation of the early metal free big bang nucleosynthesis gas releasing photons.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

Still waiting to see the precursor Milky Way at 600 million years after the Big Bang and the Milky Way's whole evolutionary, revolutionary, light trail from there, then, to here, now.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Since Milky Way is locally surrounding us, the early photons you want to see from 13 billion years ago are now 40 billion lightyears away.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

However, redshifts of 1.4 or larger, in GR math (cosmology calculators will demonstrate this), show space expanding faster than c velocity and comoving radial distances so far away, we cannot observe them today on Earth.

Galaxies that we can observe, and those are currently redshifted at 11 or larger, are not showing space expansion as such. Possibly you are referring to that really distant galaxies have photons losing ground to space expansion early on. The expansion rate has changed over time.

Remember that we can see photons that have a redshift of 1,000, the microwave background radiation, but farther back than that the early plasma captured all light. In principle there is a largest redshift distance, z = infinity, but we can't see that.

 

[Atlan0001]

If the Big Bang Horizon blows, spews, nothing but microcosmic photons, nothing but light, at the speed of light and time, then it is no wonder that the universe is loaded down with light streams running macrocosmic light time histories down every corridor and around every corner of it. All light time history crossroads won't reach to every single crossroad point of a 4-dimensional chessboard multiverse regardless of some thinking we should be capable of observing all of it, all of the multiverse universe, all at once at a every center-0-point of it . . . most especially a centric Earth so centrically divine in the universe. Since we observe our universe 1-dimensionally, even stretching to 2-dimensionality, they say that that single-sided 2-dimensional map, flattened cones of light time histories, is the whole territory mapped, if not the whole territory itself observed and observable. We observe no more than a local-relative finite part of it . . . and even then, the only current, concurrent, horizon observable is the Horizon we are quantum entangled in and with ("spooky action at a distance").

Few have minds stretched far enough to realize that the map can never be, and will never be, the territory.

And, though the collapsed constant of Horizon uses the infinitely vast resource of the infinity of universes closed up to it, in it, behind it, beyond the Horizon, influentially creatively, it is no more or less than the Planck / Big Bang / Black Hole Horizon. And it isn't any 40-billion light years away. The collapsed constant (the cosmological constant (/\/)) -- the absolute collapse of Complexity and Chaos in Horizon -- is and will be a collapse 14-billion light years, 14-billion years both past (into future) and future (into past), away from 0-point center anywhere and everywhere in infinity . . . and that every 0-point center is quantum entangled in and with (per Einstein's mind's eye trip to the Horizon, and per Hawking's "Grand Central Station" -- and Station clock, exactly the same place just viewed, pictured, differently). It doesn't go away from point of collapse, neither as the Planck Horizon down and in, nor as the Big Bang Horizon up and out, one and the same constant of collapsing, collapsed, Horizon of Complexity and Chaos down and in and up and out.
-----------------------------

"Brevity may the soul of wit, but repetition is the heart of instruction." -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

 

[rod]

Other sites reporting on the 717 *early galaxies* and JADES. JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE UNCOVERS HUNDREDS OF GALAXIES IN EARLY UNIVERSE, https://skyandtelescope.org/astrono...overs-hundreds-of-galaxies-in-early-universe/

"There’s a lot more to be gleaned from the JADES sample as JWST continues its observations, such as a better understanding of the galaxies’ shapes and sizes. In addition, while stars (and associated dust) dominated the press conference, these galaxies’ central black holes are waiting their turn for center stage. “I think that there are some really exciting examples of active supermassive black holes that people didn't necessarily expect to exist in this very early episode of the universe,” Endsley says. “It is something we really need to start taking into consideration as we move forward.” In the meantime, JWST has already painted a chaotic picture of the universe’s earliest years."

As I said before, JADES is getting interesting. The Cosmos in its Infancy: JADES Galaxy Candidates at z > 8 in GOODS-S and GOODS-N, https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02468, 04-June-2023. "We present a catalog of 717 candidate galaxies at z>8 selected from 125 square arcminutes of NIRCam imaging as part of the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES)."

My observation. No metal free gas or the pristine gas from postulated BBN is seen that is said to fill the early universe, dust is reported in JADES paper and more study required apparently to show metallicity. Cosmology calculators indicate light time of some 13 Gyr or a bit more for z=8.0 and age of universe at z=8, 0.646 Gyr. At some point, BB cosmology must show that such gas clouds postulated in theory, were indeed in nature. This includes H in the CMBR, He, and pristine gas clouds for the cosmic dark ages postulated in BB model before Population III stars formed, including showing Population III stars as real, not just simulation models. Using my telescopes, I can see the Galilean moons moving around Jupiter. I am waiting for the definitive paper and report showing the pristine gas clouds that are considered metal free. JADES is not showing this yet apparently.

 

[Elroch]

"Still waiting to see the precursor Milky Way at 600 million years after the Big Bang and the Milky Way's whole evolutionary, revolutionary, light trail from there, then, to here, now."

Atlan0101, as I understand Big Bang cosmology, the large redshift *galaxies* are much smaller sizes and masses than M31 I see in my telescopes. The tiny evolved into the big over more than 13 Gyr in cosmology However, redshifts of 1.4 or larger, in GR math (cosmology calculators will demonstrate this), show space expanding faster than c velocity and comoving radial distances so far away, we cannot observe them today on Earth. Hence, we do not know how any of these *early tiny galaxies* evolved along their comoving radial distances (or even if any still exist out there, far, far away). Something I find commonly not pointed out to the public IMO, at least not clearly.

This is a common misunderstanding caused by misleading discussion of this by those who should know better. Misleading "faster than c" velocities are produced by incorrectly adding incremental velocities in different frames. Correctly adding the velocities keeps the answer lower than c. The existence of a redshift value (like your z=1.4) means that EM radiation is visible from the source! One remote object called GN-Z11 has z=10.957. The CMB is a view of the ionised gas that filled the Universe before the time of last scattering (which most ions recombined into atoms and molecules) and has z=1100. Still visible, despite the source being a misleading "43 billion light years away" by inconsistently adding distances in comoving frames.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I think the distinction between what we are seeing now, from Earth, and where the objects that emitted that light are now, gets confused with where those objects were when they emitted the light we are seeing now.

Because we think we can see what is now microwave radiation emitted back at the time when atoms formed and allowed photons to travel freely through space, it seems that we should be able to detect radiation that was emitted later in time than 13.4 billion years ago, when the microwave background is thought to have been released.

The potential catch in that idea is whether the atomic hydrogen blocked photons of various wavelengths to the extent that they would have blocked our view from here and now. The popular media gets that all messed up, talking about how the "dark ages" before stars developed were caused by "hydrogen fog" until the hydrogen was reionized (back to the state assumed before the CMBR was released, which was another reason photons from then aren't visible to us here and now). Yes, the universe is thought to have expanded greatly between the times the CMBR was released and the times that the stars reionized the hydrogen.

But, realistically, what photons of what wavelengths should be visible to us now here on Earth from the processes that were occurring between the formation of hydrogen atoms and the formation of stars to reionize those hydrogen atoms? That is what we really want to be able to "see" with out telescopes, which will need to be able to see a very wide range of electromagnetic wave frequencies to cover that period of time, when the wavelengths were stretched by a factor up to than 1,100 between the time of emission and the time we are trying to observe them now.

 

[rod]

FYI, the comoving radial distance as well as other distances like luminosity distance are part of the FLRW metric using GR to explain redshifts and expanding space. https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html

Using a cosmology calculator like Ned Wright, will show this. An object with z=11.0 will be about 32 Gly away from Earth today (not the light time distance or look back distance reported). H0=69 km/s/Mpc so space at that distance from Earth is expanding greater than 2x c velocity. Here is another calculator https://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php, there are others too.

What is presented to the public concerning redshift distance is the look back distance or light time distance based upon Special Relativity. That is what is used for objects with z=11.00, not the comoving radial distance or discussion about the luminosity distance or angular size distance found in the calculators. The cosmology calculators also show you the age of the Universe for a given z number used too. So, an object with z=11.0 and using Ned Wright calculator, Universe age was 0.419 Gyr after the postulated BB event. Thus, it evolved in the Universe long after the CMBR appears as light but its comoving radial distance from Earth today, is very far away. I do not know why such confusion exists about this when cosmology calculators are available today. IMO, transparency is needed.

 

[rod]

Giant 'bubbletrons' shaped the forces of the universe moments after the Big Bang, new study suggests

Meet the 'bubbletrons' — theoretical particle accelerators that may have helped build the universe as we know it. Giant 'bubbletrons' shaped the forces of the universe moments after the Big Bang, new study suggests : Read more

forums.space.com

Post #5 of this discussion shows what type of large redshifts you will encounter when mapping BB cosmology timeline. BBN takes place about 3 minutes after BB, Ned Wright shows redshift about 3.7 x 10^8 for z for a Universe 3 minutes old.

 

[Elroch]

I think the distinction between what we are seeing now, from Earth, and where the objects that emitted that light are now, gets confused with where those objects were when they emitted the light we are seeing now.

Because we think we can see what is now microwave radiation emitted back at the time when atoms formed and allowed photons to travel freely through space, it seems that we should be able to detect radiation that was emitted later in time than 13.4 billion years ago, when the microwave background is thought to have been released.

The potential catch in that idea is whether the atomic hydrogen blocked photons of various wavelengths to the extent that they would have blocked our view from here and now. The popular media gets that all messed up, talking about how the "dark ages" before stars developed were caused by "hydrogen fog" until the hydrogen was reionized (back to the state assumed before the CMBR was released, which was another reason photons from then aren't visible to us here and now). Yes, the universe is thought to have expanded greatly between the times the CMBR was released and the times that the stars reionized the hydrogen.

But, realistically, what photons of what wavelengths should be visible to us now here on Earth from the processes that were occurring between the formation of hydrogen atoms and the formation of stars to reionize those hydrogen atoms? That is what we really want to be able to "see" with out telescopes, which will need to be able to see a very wide range of electromagnetic wave frequencies to cover that period of time, when the wavelengths were stretched by a factor up to than 1,100 between the time of emission and the time we are trying to observe them now.

A lot of the confusion resides in that word "now". Everyone who has done an introductory course on special relativity knows that there is no simultaneity in the relativistic universe. Objects that have a relative velocity do not have a consistent scale of time. This is no less true in the large scale universe (it is complicated slightly by local non-flatness, but it is not a bad approximation to think of a large piece of the universe as as flat and therefore having a set of Lorentz frames associated with velocities.
Of course a popular choice of "now" uses the relativistically inconsistent clocks associated with different comoving local frames to measure the time since the Big Bang (roughly). Any two such clocks see each other running slowly.
Some minor points:
- the CMWB is from nearer 13.8 billion years ago (more precisely, it is from around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, using a co-moving clock (a mere 0.00038 billion years after the Big Bang)
- the definition of this "time of last scattering" is that the Universe is so transparent after that time that most photons travel all the way to our time without being obstructed. The earliest visible object (GN-z11, a modest sized galaxy with redshift z=11) is from about 13.4 billion years ago in our time, but even earlier objects will be seen eventually.

 

[Atlan0001]

Any two such clocks see each other running slowly.

That is light's increasing failure -- increasing time necessary -- to cover the gap going away (thus clocks "see each other running slowly). What of the closing gap in oncoming, where clocks see other running faster . . . accelerating in running faster (histories ascending faster and faster (clock time frequencies increasing from behind in catching up, closing from the direction of the distance Horizon of time, faster and faster), like the "observed" universe itself in its oncoming, its closing, to anywhere)?!

Warp space?! Hyper surface hyperspace?! And/or Wormhole space?! In less time! Hyper-time! Past and future histories closing to points (t=0) of rendezvous rather than equally but oppositely separating and seeing time slowing, clocks slowing, light (light time) not keeping up, in an ever-increasing separation of position and/or curvature (still an increase in dimensional separation) of acceleration in velocity! However, when the triangulation contracts, the clocks, the light times, speed up toward each other, speeding up toward ever-increasing reality as well as toward ever-increasing relativity, in clocking time.

Or is that just far too much, far too dimensional (beyond the absolutely 1-dimensional), for the physics, and physicists, of Relativity?!

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Yes, I messed up the subtraction in my previous post for the age of the CMBR. But we seem to agree that the light emitted by and after the CMBR should be visible here "now" (Earth's frame of reference), just at variously stretched wavelengths. We seem to agree that there is a lot of space out there to see that we cannot currently see with enough magnification to discern details.

Part of my question was whether we have detection capabilities in all of the relevant electromagnetic frequencies, and magnification capabilities in all of those frequencies. (This ranges from long-wave radio to at least visible, if not ultraviolet light, with telescopes that range from radar dishes to optical lenses.)

As for what is "now", that is certainly a function of location when dealing with relativistic velocity differences between frames of reference. "Simultaneous" requires both time and location to be identical if speeds are not the same between 2 reference frames.

But, that is "Special Relativity" which deals with objects (and their frames of reference) moving through space. When we get to the BBT, where "space" itself is "moving" ("inflating"), and at extremely variable expansion rates chosen to fit theories about otherwise inexplicable astronomy observations, I am not convinced that even the theoretical physicists are thinking correctly about the way time actually passes (for purposes of physical processes to occur) and the way it would look like time was passing from the vantage point of Earth at what is "now" in Earth's frame of reference. It seems to me that, part way through their story about how the universe evolved, the theoretical physicists have effectively swapped the Earth astronomers' frame of reference for a "high energy physics laboratory" frame of reference, which is assuming that the observer is standing outside the universe and watching it in some frame of reference assumed to be like Earth's here and now. I do not think that "inflation" has been thought through objectively or properly with respect to time - it looks to me like a laboratory physicist's concept of a high energy particle collider that they can inflate or deflate at will in their laboratory, while still measuring distances and times and the speed of light in laboratory units, not the units as they would be perceived inside their test environments.