James Webb Space Telescope spots the 2 earliest galaxies ever seen (image)

[Admin]

James Webb Space Telescope has spotted the two earliest and most distant galaxies ever seen. One, JADES-GS-z14-0, is a massive and bright galaxy that existed just 300 million years after the Big Bang.

James Webb Space Telescope spots the 2 earliest galaxies ever seen (image) : Read more

 

[Helio]

James Webb Space Telescope has spotted the two earliest and most distant galaxies ever seen. One, JADES-GS-z14-0, is a massive and bright galaxy that existed just 300 million years after the Big Bang.

James Webb Space Telescope spots the 2 earliest galaxies ever seen (image) : Read more

That's a surprisingly early age for a "large" galaxy.

But is it "large" as quoted? The link to the "statement" claims it is large at 1,600 lyrs. in size (dia.). That is more "tiny" than large. I thought it was a typo so I sought the paper.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.18485

It states it has a radius of about 260 pc, so ~1600 lyrs. in dia. [Thus not a typo.]

Are most other early galaxies tiny?

This is weird.

What am I missing?

 

[Unclear Engineer]

BBC's article puts the age of JADES-GS-z14-0 at 290 million years after the Big Bang. 10 million years is starting to be a significant issue with these early ages at large Z values. So, is the "about 300 million years" in this Space.com article a meaningful difference associated with the uncertainty, or what?

Helio, a couple of thoughts: First, "large" seems to be a relative term related to expectations, rather than comparisons to locally observed galaxies. Second, it is not clear to me that the full extent of the galaxy is evident in the Webb observation. What was seen is said to be brighter than expected, but the story also says that the Webb telescope could see things 1/10 of that brightness. And, to make matters more complex, our line of sight to JADES-GS-z14-0 is going very close to a foreground galaxy. So, I am wondering if we can really detect the outer edges of JADES-GS-z14-0 to get its diameter with much accuracy.

I expect that Webb will find more of these, so there should be some confirming or confusing data coming in the future. If Webb really can see things at 1/10 the brightness, could it see twin of JADES-GS-z14-0 at an even earlier age. It will be interesting to see how far back we can see galaxies. And, if they are as "old" as we can see, "We're going to need a bigger telescope!"

 

[Classical Motion]

With every instrument we build and use, we can't wait for something larger. Let's develop a long term plan. Let's start dropping optical "pixels" on the far side of the moon. A "pixel" would be an optical unit dropped from orbit. Self leveling, self inflating, self aiming and self powered. Networked with the other pixels. Radio detectors can be added to this also. The whole spectrum. Using the far side would be intermittent, but it's the only dark and quiet place left.

Like putting thousands of cube sats in Earth's orbit, start dropping thousands of pixels on the far side. Grow an array. A very large array. It might take a few decades to assemble.

Make the far side the quiet and soft side. An out of bounds zone. A Solar Park. A scanning eye and a scanning ear. Passive. A second generation could be made active for long range or high speed communications.

What we really need is a new method for collecting light. Make telescopes on an assembly line. Stamp them out. Something inflatable, or easily foldable, self shaping and self distorting for beaming. Surface shaping control. Durable, self repairing and above all, cheap.

Is that too much? We could put pixels in all the planetary Lagrange points. Let's go big now and get it over with.

After all, the only thing we'll ever do is look and listen. No matter what we see or what we hear.

 

[Helio]

BBC's article puts the age of JADES-GS-z14-0 at 290 million years after the Big Bang. 10 million years is starting to be a significant issue with these early ages at large Z values. So, is the "about 300 million years" in this Space.com article a meaningful difference associated with the uncertainty, or what?

IMO, these vast distances become more problematic since certain paramaters must be assumed to get to these times. These are used in Ned Wright's calculator online. Rob might be able to address this better.

Helio, a couple of thoughts: First, "large" seems to be a relative term related to expectations, rather than comparisons to locally observed galaxies. Second, it is not clear to me that the full extent of the galaxy is evident in the Webb observation. What was seen is said to be brighter than expected, but the story also says that the Webb telescope could see things 1/10 of that brightness. And, to make matters more complex, our line of sight to JADES-GS-z14-0 is going very close to a foreground galaxy. So, I am wondering if we can really detect the outer edges of JADES-GS-z14-0 to get its diameter with much accuracy.

Yes, this is one reason I asked if "tiny" galaxies were the norm during this time frame. BBT predicts the first galaxies would appear immature, and would likely be smaller than today. But 1600 lyrs. is a surprise.

You may be right that this small size may be only for the brighter portion of the galaxy, but this should have been stated, or perhaps it was and I just missed it

I expect that Webb will find more of these, so there should be some confirming or confusing data coming in the future. If Webb really can see things at 1/10 the brightness, could it see twin of JADES-GS-z14-0 at an even earlier age. It will be interesting to see how far back we can see galaxies. And, if they are as "old" as we can see, "We're going to need a bigger telescope!"

Yes, and I recommend a bigger telescope.