The James Webb Space Telescope discovers enormous distant galaxies that should not exist

[Admin]

The James Webb Space Telescope found massive, mature galaxies inhabiting the universe so soon after the Big Bang that according to current theories they really shouldn't exist.

The James Webb Space Telescope discovers enormous distant galaxies that should not exist : Read more

 

[rod]

No, the Big Bang theory is not 'broken.' Here's how we know.

Researchers confirmed that the distant galaxies discovered by the James Webb Space Telescope are, indeed, perfectly compatible with our modern understanding of cosmology. No, the Big Bang theory is not 'broken.' Here's how we know. : Read more

forums.space.com

Same issues here as I discussed in post #61 above. The only objective way to verify galaxy evolution models is to compare their present dimensions at their look back time distance (what we see on Earth and redshift) with what they look like at the comoving radial distances (not observable from Earth) because of the immense distances in the BB model for expansion. Something like the Sparkler galaxy in post #61 is a good example.

 

[Atliberty]

The cosmic egg exploding at the moment of creation theory known as the big bang will fade into history like the flat Earth geocentric theory and give way to an infinite universe theory.

 

[Sabo]

Gosh, and here I was simply pointing out that the writer apparently didn't bother to read the published article she's reporting on... There's a big difference between "500,000 to 700,000 years" (which she had to conscientiously type out), and 500 to 700 MILLION years after the 'Big Bang'.

Understand how, as a new reader, I might become immediately skeptical of a publication's quality when their writers fail to pay attention to critically significant numbers involving the discussion.

Just saying...

 

[Decarboxylate]

The cosmic egg exploding at the moment of creation theory known as the big bang will fade into history like the flat Earth geocentric theory and give way to an infinite universe theory.

Absolutely. But this will take a lot of time. The hubris of modern scientists (I'm looking at you Neil DeGrasse Tyson) is astonishing. They forget that every generation of scientists before also thought they had it figured out for sure.

 

[Decarboxylate]

Flat Earth gave way to...

Geocentric Universe which gave way to...

Heliocentric Universe which gave way to...

One Galaxy gave way to...

Accelerating Expansion of a finite universe will give way to...

Point is, there's no reason to think the Big Bang Theory is the end all. We still know almost nothing and we need to be ready for the next paradigm... Whatever that may be.

 

[murgatroyd]

What difference does it make whether or not the universe is infinite? We cannot interact with nor even observe what lies outside of the observable universe, so why bother?

 

[billslugg]

When you get out past the edge of the observable universe the Dollar Stores really start thinning out.

 

[mikekrumm]

How do we know we're not looking at our own stellar neighborhood in a looped universe?

 

[rod]

The reference cited in the article, ref - A population of red candidate massive galaxies ~600 Myr after the Big Bang, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05786-2, 22-Feb-2023. "Abstract Galaxies with stellar masses as high as ~ 10^11 solar masses have been identified1–3 out to redshifts z ~ 6, approximately one billion years after the Big Bang. It has been difficult to find massive galaxies at even earlier times, as the Balmer break region, which is needed for accurate mass estimates, is redshifted to wavelengths beyond 2.5 μm. Here we make use of the 1-5 μm coverage of the JWST early release observations to search for intrinsically red galaxies in the first ≈ 750 million years of cosmic history. In the survey area, we find six candidate massive galaxies (stellar mass > 10^10 solar masses) at 7.4 ≤ z ≤ 9.1, 500–700 Myr after the Big Bang, including one galaxy with a possible stellar mass of ~10^11 solar masses. If verified with spectroscopy, the stellar mass density in massive galaxies would be much higher than anticipated from previous studies based on rest-frame ultraviolet-selected samples."


My observation. https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html can be used to show calculations, z=9.1 light-time or look back distance is 13.178 Gyr or 13.178 billion light-years from Earth. The age of the universe at z=9.1 is 0.543 Gyr and comoving radial distance is 30.802 Gly. Using H0=69 km/s/Mpc space is expanding 2.1735932 x c velocity at the comoving radial distance. Any galaxies seen by JWST with such deep or large redshifts, presently sit in the universe immensely farther away and evolved into what? Unknown morphology and mass evolutionary changes it seems when comparing the look back distance with comoving radial distances in the expanding universe model. Little mysteries like this appear when you dive deeper into BB cosmology and redshift interpretations.

 

[karlp295]

All this speculation and in time we will develop new theories that get closer to reality, whatever that is. We are always mostly wrong and it is normal that theories will change. One day I am hopeful that we will begin to understand about creation which we know nothing about at present.

 

[twr]

Maybe, Hermann Bondi was right... " All theory is preliminary", as Karl Popper said.

 

[Raumzeit]

Gosh, and here I was simply pointing out that the writer apparently didn't bother to read the published article she's reporting on... There's a big difference between "500,000 to 700,000 years" (which she had to conscientiously type out), and 500 to 700 MILLION years after the 'Big Bang'.

Understand how, as a new reader, I might become immediately skeptical of a publication's quality when their writers fail to pay attention to critically significant numbers involving the discussion.

Just saying...

She also said the Dark Ages ended after 400 million years. They actually ended after 380k years. As to your comment - I guess they rectified it?

 

[Sir Nick]

Perhaps this is some remnant of a previous or different 'big bang'. If the universe is so large, perhaps there have been 'big bangs' in different quadrants. Until now, all that we've been able to see is the nearest one.

 

[Atlan0001]

Don't tell me "Nobody expected them"! Not only did I expect them, I predicted them again and again right here on Space.com forums as well as other places before. I've been proved . . . my prediction of that region has been proved and just as I predicted. If we ever get something more capable than the James Webb, there will be even more to come behind those so distant in light-time histories' "mature galaxies" in a "many worlds" (many universes), [multi-level multiplex] Multiverse-Universe. We are seeing two levels of a multi-dimensional Horizon. We are seeing -- well almost -- the purpose predicted [Big Bang / Planck / Infinite] Horizon (H) of Universe (U) (I claim always current and concurrent Horizon (H)), and we are seeing beyond it into the 'horizon' (h) of more universe (u) (to infinitely more universes (u)). The [point-portal-gateway-dual minimum] of at least two levels of that "Horizon" (H) / "horizon" (h). Both will remain as and what they are (the one maintaining its collapsed Big Bang / Planck / Infinity 'Horizon' distance always) no matter what more we observe farther and farther out, and farther and farther back, of Hawking's "life zone" (h)!

They will seemingly contradict each other, but actually they don't.

 

[Wind Angel]

What difference does it make whether or not the universe is infinite? We cannot interact with nor even observe what lies outside of the observable universe, so why bother?

I am so glad more people don't have your attitude, we'd still be living in caves.

 

[Wind Angel]

The James Webb Space Telescope found massive, mature galaxies inhabiting the universe so soon after the Big Bang that according to current theories they really shouldn't exist.

The James Webb Space Telescope discovers enormous distant galaxies that should not exist : Read more

Hopefully they will investigate and determine their age without reference to their Big Bang model. But I am afraid they will use the Methuselah star illogic and try to determine their age by when their prevalent elements came to be according to the Big Bang theory timeline. Why are they so emotionally attached to that Bang?

 

[billslugg]

Emotional attachment due to it explains more observations than any other theory. Weak light presumes time dilation at the source is not the cause of redshift but in 2009, ESO reported a study shows supernova's light curves are indeed stretched out in time in distant galaxies. Steady state/tired light theory is inconsistent with this.
Also, Tired Light must give a mechanism for EM waves to lose energy and must show where that energy went.

 

[murgatroyd]

I am so glad more people don't have your attitude, we'd still be living in caves.

Do you know what the words "light cone" mean? Do you understand that what lies outside of it is forever inaccessible to us?

 

[Atlan0001]

Do you know what the words "light cone" mean? Do you understand that what lies outside of it is forever inaccessible to us?

Nothing of the Universe (U) -- and the infinity of frontier universes (frontier universe horizons) -- is ever inaccessible to the frontier human mind (to the frontier human's "mind's eye").

To borrow from C. S. Lewis, 'The Abolition of Man': Aim at Heaven (the heavens, the frontier universe horizons) and get Earth thrown in. Aim at Earth and get neither.

 

[Robbo5000]

I've been expecting evidence against a universe of only 13.7 billion years for a long time, there's plenty more evidence to come that will pitch it back way way further.
I've been saying for over 25 years that the universe is not 13.7 billion years old, and that the big bang is only a very localised blip. If the universe is a sheet of A4, the 13.7 billion light years of observable universe is a tiny little pinprick in the A4 sheet.
Human nature ego has always insisted we are the centre of everything and everything we see is the universe. I don't understand why modern science doesn't learn from repeated mistakes of assuming what we see is everything.
The 'universe' is 'approximately' infinitely older than 13.7 billion years old and is 'approximately' infinitely bigger than 13.7 billion light years. The best thing that human scientists could do is recognise and understand these concepts.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

And now there is this: https://www.livescience.com/rare-bl...d-upend-our-understanding-of-galaxy-formation .

It seems that whenever we get to see further in space, and presumably futher back in time, we see things that look to "evolved" to match our current theories. So, we just change the theories to accommodate what we see.

That should undermine the confidence in the underlying theories, but they are so malleable, with unconstrained tuning parameters, that they are just retuned every time.

But, it is reasonable to ask this: If the predictions for what is just beyond our view keep turning out to be substantially off in terms of at least timing, what does that seem to indicate about the reliability of the timing for all of those events postulated to have occurred between what we can now barely see and the time when the whole observable universe is postulated to have been only the size of a subatomic particle? To me, it seems to undermine the theory that claims it could ever have been so small in the past. It isn't a matter of "disproving" the theory, it is a matter of questioning it - of having lower confidence in it.

 

[Catastrophe]

I've been expecting evidence against a universe of only 13.7 billion years for a long time, there's plenty more evidence to come that will pitch it back way way further.
I've been saying for over 25 years that the universe is not 13.7 billion years old, and that the big bang is only a very localised blip. If the universe is a sheet of A4, the 13.7 billion light years of observable universe is a tiny little pinprick in the A4 sheet.
Human nature ego has always insisted we are the centre of everything and everything we see is the universe. I don't understand why modern science doesn't learn from repeated mistakes of assuming what we see is everything.
The 'universe' is 'approximately' infinitely older than 13.7 billion years old and is 'approximately' infinitely bigger than 13.7 billion light years. The best thing that human scientists could do is recognise and understand these concepts.

Of course, if you replace a fictional singularity with a nexus in a cyclic model, there is no need to be constrained by x billion years. Just have lots of them.

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

And now that I have posted this: https://www.livescience.com/rare-bl...d-upend-our-understanding-of-galaxy-formation .

I see this: https://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/pressreleases/2023/4

And the second paper negates the first.

It seems that it is going to take a while before we can believe anybody has really made correct interpretaions of new Webb data.

 

[billslugg]

Second paper negates part of the first. One SMBH was downgraded. There are still too many, too big and too early for our models. Current models must be modified to account for our observation.

Perhaps we don't know enough about pure hydrogen star formation rates. Maybe we don't have a good model for how clouds of hydrogen lose their heat and collapse. Maybe they burn faster than we thought. Big battle going on right now between cloud cooling people and high pressure hydrogen fusion people. Lots of uncertainty around fusion at high pressures. Hard to replicate in the lab.

Further JWST data might help resolve the discrepancy.