James Webb challenge to existing models

[mindlight]

What are the challenges resulting from the main findings of the James Webb telescope to existing scientific models?

Among the observations seem to be:
1) There are more galaxies than previously found or expected
2) Even the more extreme distance galaxies seem to have more structure than expected.

Why are we not seeing partially formed galaxies, as expected, from the early stages just after the "Big Bang?"

What can this better vision of the universe tell us about star and planet formation?

Are old universe believers saying that the universe is bigger or older than previously expected?

Four revelations from the Webb telescope about distant galaxies

 

[Bradskii]

What are the challenges resulting from the main findings of the James Webb telescope to existing scientific models?

Among the observations seem to be:
1) There are more galaxies than previously found or expected
2) Even the more extreme distance galaxies seem to have more structure than expected.

Why are we not seeing partially formed galaxies, as expected, from the early stages just after the "Big Bang?"

What can this better vision of the universe tell us about star and planet formation?

Are old universe believers saying that the universe is bigger or older than previously expected?

Four revelations from the Webb telescope about distant galaxies

As regards younger galaxies, your link includes a picture of one barely 300 million years old. And tells you that stars began to form about 250 million years after the big bang. So you won't see many much younger. And even Webb isn't going to pick out individual stars or even groups of stars that far back.

And Webb can only see the observable universe. You can't see further than that so it can't see 'more' of the universe. Only the observable one in greater detail.

 

[mindlight]

As regards younger galaxies, your link includes a picture of one barely 300 million years old. And tells you that stars began to form about 250 million years after the big bang. So you won't see many much younger. And even Webb isn't going to pick out individual stars or even groups of stars that far back.

And Webb can only see the observable universe. You can't see further than that so it can't see 'more' of the universe. Only the observable one in greater detail.

And so far that detail is of fully formed galaxies and precious little transitory forms of stars or planets. Hence my questions.

 

[John Owen]

This whole discussion is absolutely fascinating. The Re shift theory blows my mind. I read these things and sit in awe of those who deal daily in them. Then I see the photos the Space Telescope produces and love them.

 

[Halbhh]

What are the challenges resulting from the main findings of the James Webb telescope to existing scientific models?

Among the observations seem to be:
1) There are more galaxies than previously found or expected
2) Even the more extreme distance galaxies seem to have more structure than expected.

Why are we not seeing partially formed galaxies, as expected, from the early stages just after the "Big Bang?"

What can this better vision of the universe tell us about star and planet formation?

Are old universe believers saying that the universe is bigger or older than previously expected?

Four revelations from the Webb telescope about distant galaxies

That galaxies that are very large and look like what we thought were much more mature shapes seem to appear (it needs additional confirmations) much earlier than models for their formation predicted in the early Universe. Basically, it looks like these large galaxies are showing up so early that it suggests the long existing theories about what formed when or alternatively how more mature galaxies (which are just lots of stars that are gravitationally bound together) were pulled together and merged into such mature types are probably wrong -- that somehow they show up a lot earlier than thought possible heretofore.

 

[Halbhh]

And tells you that stars began to form about 250 million years after the big bang.

This we knew a long while -- that stars formed already 100-150 million years after the big bang. That's the old view, and isn't changed here.

What's truly surprising is how larger, surprisingly more mature looking galaxies (of a kind expected to be long after/well past initially formed clusters and such) seem to have formed so early. See post #7 just below for more.

 

[Halbhh]

Here's what we understand a young early (in the Universe) galaxy ought to look like:

Early Galaxies (at a time like only 200 million years after the Big Bang) ought to be:

• Relatively small compared to mature galaxies like the Milky way -- much much smaller and much less luminous (the Milky way is 'mature' -- it is the result of absorbing a lot of smaller galaxies and clusters over time)
• Often oddly shaped, not having enough time to become more symmetrical

#1 ought to make most all of them impossible to see with current telescopes past a certain limited distance, because such small galaxies don't emit that much light of course compare to massive mature galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars.

Here's a nice summary sentence of that bit from a link I just looked up for anyone wanting an article:

"...initial projections estimated the first galaxies would be so small and faint that JWST would find at best a few intriguingly remote candidates in its pilot investigations. Things didn’t quite go as planned. Instead, as soon as the telescope’s scientists released its very first images of the distant universe, astronomers like Naidu (at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) started finding numerous galaxies within them that, in apparent age, size and luminosity, surpassed all predictions. ..."
JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology

 

[Halbhh]

Are old universe believers saying that the universe is bigger or older than previously expected?

Post #7 just above is the only credible thing we can say so far about these big questions you are asking. This last question you ask here (above) is a pretty far out question in a way. The way we have our current estimate of the age of the Universe is merely from extrapolating backwards from the expansion rate we see and how we think that rate changes over time. It's not something that can change by a huge amount, as it is. For instance, our understanding of the expansion rate could very plausibly change a few percentage points with refinements, but we understand (at the moment) it could not change over time by some huge amount like 70%, at least not in any way we can currently conceive. So, at most our eventual refinements of the estimated age of the Universe should be not all that far from the currently thought 13.8 bn years even after we pin down more about the expansion rate and get more precision in the future. It might change a little, is my expectation. A few hundred million years even would not surprise (but it could easily be much less change than that).

 

[Lost4words]

All will be revealed once heaven is our final resting place.

 

[Estrid]

What are the challenges resulting from the main findings of the James Webb telescope to existing scientific models?

Among the observations seem to be:
1) There are more galaxies than previously found or expected
2) Even the more extreme distance galaxies seem to have more structure than expected.

Why are we not seeing partially formed galaxies, as expected, from the early stages just after the "Big Bang?"

What can this better vision of the universe tell us about star and planet formation?

Are old universe believers saying that the universe is bigger or older than previously expected?

Four revelations from the Webb telescope about distant galaxies

" Old universe believers"?

 

[Estrid]

All will be revealed once heaven is our final resting place.

Who would even want to just be given all the answers?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who would even want to just be given all the answers?

Skeptics? seekers?

 

[John Owen]

Who would even want to just be given all the answers?

I think we will be given the opportunity to ask God questions and have him, or Jesus, give us detailed answers for eternity. Personally, I hope there is something similar to virtual reality where God allows us to look at events as they happen and understand them. That would be fascinating. For eternity.

 

[mindlight]

" Old universe believers"?

My translation: Oh goodness he is one of those, what if someone from the high priesthood of academia caught me talking to him

 

[mindlight]

Post #7 just above is the only credible thing we can say so far about these big questions you are asking. This last question you ask here (above) is a pretty far out question in a way. The way we have our current estimate of the age of the Universe is merely from extrapolating backwards from the expansion rate we see and how we think that rate changes over time. It's not something that can change by a huge amount, as it is. For instance, our understanding of the expansion rate could very plausibly change a few percentage points with refinements, but we understand (at the moment) it could not change over time by some huge amount like 70%, at least not in any way we can currently conceive. So, at most our eventual refinements of the estimated age of the Universe should be not all that far from the currently thought 13.8 bn years even after we pin down more about the expansion rate and get more precision in the future. It might change a little, is my expectation. A few hundred million years even would not surprise (but it could easily be much less change than that).

You are probably right. The most significant conclusion here from what has been seen so far is that we are still missing those early unformed galaxies. We have a lot more detail of fully formed galaxies, stars and planets though. Just missing all those transitory forms that the big theoretical models always depend on finding and which this experiment was in part designed to find. The last question was really to get some idea of how the scientific community will be reinventing itself in the face of this, this time.

 

[Halbhh]

You are probably right. The most significant conclusion here from what has been seen so far is that we are still missing those early unformed galaxies. We have a lot more detail of fully formed galaxies, stars and planets though. Just missing all those transitory forms that the big theoretical models always depend on finding and which this experiment was in part designed to find. The last question was really to get some idea of how the scientific community will be reinventing itself in the face of this, this time.

We can only currently see large enough galaxies to be luminous enough to be detected by our current telescopes at that distance (corresponding to about 200 million years after Big Bang). But one wonders what we might accomplish with groups of telescopes working together. Meanwhile, this on an individual very bright and long ago star is fun: something not so early as the even earlier galaxies we think we are seeing, but still pretty far away:

(March 2022): In a report published Wednesday in the journal Nature, a team of astronomers asserts that this is the most distant individual star ever seen. They describe it as 50 to 100 times more massive than our sun, and roughly 1 million times brighter, with its starlight having traveled 12.9 billion years to reach the telescope. [Hubble]
...
Found in the constellation Cetus near the star Mira, Earendel’s light was emitted about 900 million years after the universe began its expansion — the big bang. If that estimated distance holds up to further scrutiny, the starlight would have been emitted nearly 4 billion years further back in the universe’s history than that of the most distant individual star previously seen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2022/03/30/most-distant-star/

 

[Estrid]

My translation: Oh goodness he is one of those, what if someone from the high priesthood of academia caught me talking to him

Whatever that even means it's clearly trying to insult
someone but says more about you than anyone else

 

[Estrid]

I think we will be given the opportunity to ask God questions and have him, or Jesus, give us detailed answers for eternity. Personally, I hope there is something similar to virtual reality where God allows us to look at events as they happen and understand them. That would be fascinating. For eternity.

It's a nice thought

 

[sjastro]

We can only currently see large enough galaxies to be luminous enough to be detected by our current telescopes at that distance (corresponding to about 200 million years after Big Bang). But one wonders what we might accomplish with groups of telescopes working together. Meanwhile, this on an individual very bright and long ago star is fun: something not so early as the even earlier galaxies we think we are seeing, but still pretty far away:

(March 2022): In a report published Wednesday in the journal Nature, a team of astronomers asserts that this is the most distant individual star ever seen. They describe it as 50 to 100 times more massive than our sun, and roughly 1 million times brighter, with its starlight having traveled 12.9 billion years to reach the telescope. [Hubble]
...
Found in the constellation Cetus near the star Mira, Earendel’s light was emitted about 900 million years after the universe began its expansion — the big bang. If that estimated distance holds up to further scrutiny, the starlight would have been emitted nearly 4 billion years further back in the universe’s history than that of the most distant individual star previously seen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2022/03/30/most-distant-star/

Radio telescopes have been probing far deeper into the universe for decades way beyond Webb's capabilities.
For example the largest single dish telescope found in China has an aperture of 500 metres compared to Webb's puny 6.5 metre aperture.
Due to their operation in long wavelengths makes radio telescopes ideal for very long baseline interferometry.
The Event Horizon Telescope for example combined several radio telescopes around the planet to produce an effective aperture nearly equal to the Earth's diameter.
The CMB detected by radio telescopes is around 13.7 billion light years away.

Radio telescopes have failed to find stars and galaxies during the universe's dark age era from the formation of the CMB to reionization which is around 100 million years.
This supports BB cosmology as stars and galaxies could not have existed during this period as temperatures were still too high for the gravitational clumping of matter.

The objective of the Webb telescope is to probe the reionization era which followed the dark age when stars and galaxies began to form.

Webb will hopefully tell us how far the evolution of galaxies can be pushed back in the reionization era, but it will not be a paradigm changing event which shows the BB is wrong.
What it may show is our understanding of the evolution of stars and galaxies is not complete.

 

[Bradskii]

And so far that detail is of fully formed galaxies and precious little transitory forms of stars or planets. Hence my questions.

And my answer. That Webb can't see those. I mean, the whole galaxy it showed was just a blur of light.