James Webb challenge to existing models

[Halbhh]

Good overview.

I'd suggest everyone skim through at least.

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.

 

[Halbhh]

JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology

"...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. The competition for discovery was fierce: with each new day, it seemed, claims of yet another record-breaking “earliest known galaxy” would emerge from one research group or another. “Everyone was freaking out,” says Charlotte Mason, an astrophysicist at the University of Copenhagen. “We really weren’t expecting this.”

In the weeks and months following JWST’s findings of surprisingly mature “early” galaxies, blindsided theorists and observers alike have been scrambling to explain them. Could the bevy of anomalously big and bright early galaxies be illusory, perhaps because of flaws in analysis of the telescope’s initial observations? If genuine, could they somehow be explained by standard cosmological models? Or, just maybe, were they the first hints that the universe is more strange and complex than even our boldest theories had supposed?

At stake is nothing less than our very understanding of how the orderly universe we know emerged from primordial chaos. JWST’s early revelations could be poised to rewrite the opening chapters of cosmic history, which concern not only distant epochs and faraway galaxies but also our own existence here, in the familiar Milky Way. “You build these machines not to confirm the paradigm, but to break it,” says JWST scientist Mark McCaughrean, a senior advisor for science and exploration at the European Space Agency. “You just don’t know how it will break.”

(continues...)

JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology

 

[sjastro]

JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology

"...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. The competition for discovery was fierce: with each new day, it seemed, claims of yet another record-breaking “earliest known galaxy” would emerge from one research group or another. “Everyone was freaking out,” says Charlotte Mason, an astrophysicist at the University of Copenhagen. “We really weren’t expecting this.”

In the weeks and months following JWST’s findings of surprisingly mature “early” galaxies, blindsided theorists and observers alike have been scrambling to explain them. Could the bevy of anomalously big and bright early galaxies be illusory, perhaps because of flaws in analysis of the telescope’s initial observations? If genuine, could they somehow be explained by standard cosmological models? Or, just maybe, were they the first hints that the universe is more strange and complex than even our boldest theories had supposed?

At stake is nothing less than our very understanding of how the orderly universe we know emerged from primordial chaos. JWST’s early revelations could be poised to rewrite the opening chapters of cosmic history, which concern not only distant epochs and faraway galaxies but also our own existence here, in the familiar Milky Way. “You build these machines not to confirm the paradigm, but to break it,” says JWST scientist Mark McCaughrean, a senior advisor for science and exploration at the European Space Agency. “You just don’t know how it will break.”

(continues...)

JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology

Reading this excerpt plus the available information from the paywall link reiterates the comments I made in another thread regarding popsci articles.
In this case I have learnt astronomers “are freaking out”, theorists and observers been “blindsided” and “scrambling” to explain the results which have “reverberated around the world” and “even Captain America would share the story on twitter”.
Perhaps I’m jumping the gun and there is meatier technical detail behind the paywall but this is sensationalism.

Blatant sensationalism is found in the reporting of astronomers being in a “state of panic” over JWST observations based on this preprint.
The popsci articles reacted to the word "panic" in the preprint title "Panic! at The Disks: First Rest-frame Optical Observations of Galaxy Structure at z > 3 with JWST in the SMACS 0723 Field" failing to see the inbuilt joke in the title.

 

[Halbhh]

Reading this excerpt plus the available information from the paywall link reiterates the comments I made in another thread regarding popsci articles.
In this case I have learnt astronomers “are freaking out”, theorists and observers been “blindsided” and “scrambling” to explain the results which have “reverberated around the world” and “even Captain America would share the story on twitter”.
Perhaps I’m jumping the gun and there is meatier technical detail behind the paywall but this is sensationalism.

Blatant sensationalism is found in the reporting of astronomers being in a “state of panic” over JWST observations based on this preprint.
The popsci articles reacted to the word "panic" in the preprint title "Panic! at The Disks: First Rest-frame Optical Observations of Galaxy Structure at z > 3 with JWST in the SMACS 0723 Field" failing to see the inbuilt joke in the title.

Well, it will be a big deal if it turns out mature looking galaxies previously thought to gradually grow over many hundreds of millions of years already existed at early dates like only 100-250 million years after the first stars formed. It might mean the processes that brought together such larger galaxies are faster/different than we have thought, or some other equally dramatic new discovery is behind such, even a major revision in cosmology potentially....

It will be a big deal if it proves to be as it appears so far.

If that holds up, it will be in that case a major discovery.

Just an encouraging bit for you to know on this article, Scientific American isn't really 'pop sci' in the sense you suggest, sensational. Nope. It's a relatively high quality. ( and has been operating since the 19th century). I remember using a dictionary to read it at age 12 back in the 70s. I subscribed to it in the 90s for a few years, and also read it at libraries. Its good quality then and since.
I'm not sure its behind a paywall. There is a large pop up that you accept cookies, as for any site now. I don't have a subscription but can read the whole article.

 

[SelfSim]

Well, it will be a big deal if it turns out mature looking galaxies previously thought to gradually grow over many hundreds of millions of years already existed at early dates like only 100-250 million years after the first stars formed.

100-250 million years is hundreds {edit: of millions} of years .. So all we're debating there, is the meaning of the word 'mature' then(?)

It might mean the processes that brought together such larger galaxies are faster/different than we have thought, or some other equally dramatic new discovery is behind such, even a major revision in cosmology potentially....

.. and so? It might not mean any of that also.

It will be a big deal if it proves to be as it appears so far.

'Big deal' .. So now all we're debating is what you mean by a 'big deal', eh?

If that holds up, it will be in that case a major discovery.

Major discoveries are just a human craving .. (Y'know .. like a slice of chocolate cake .. ).

There's no need to elevate personal speculations above the pursuit of a rational, methodically-evidenced based explanation.

 

[sjastro]

Well, it will be a big deal if it turns out mature looking galaxies previously thought to gradually grow over many hundreds of millions of years already existed at early dates like only 100-250 million years after the first stars formed. It might mean the processes that brought together such larger galaxies are faster/different than we have thought, or some other equally dramatic new discovery is behind such, even a major revision in cosmology potentially....

It will be a big deal if it proves to be as it appears so far.

If that holds up, it will be in that case a major discovery.

The issues I have here are the supposed implications on cosmology and I can only go by what I have been able to read on the subject.
If you watched the "Don't Panic" video the astronomer was referring to JWST images revealing a large number of disk type (spiral) galaxies which is a problem in explaining the evolution of galaxies.
This issue was known decades before even JWST started to take images.
The ΛCDM model for galaxy formation is based on the following simplified mechanism.

​

A problem with this mechanism it leads to a hierarchical problem as the ΛCDM model prediction underestimates the number of disk like (spiral) galaxies produced from proto-galaxies.
The JWST images have only confirmed the problem but there was no talk about the cosmological model being in trouble amongst scientists as the issue lies with the evolution of the galaxies themselves.
Similarly the evidence of galaxies being at a more mature stage of evolution in the earlier history of the universe in the reionization era again points to the problem being with the evolution of galaxies.
If there was evidence of microwave redshifted galaxies in the dark age the cosmological model would definitely be in trouble hence the Scientific American Title of "JWST's First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology" seems a bit over the top.

Just an encouraging bit for you to know on this article, Scientific American isn't really 'pop sci' in the sense you suggest, sensational. Nope. It's a relatively high quality. ( and has been operating since the 19th century). I remember using a dictionary to read it at age 12 back in the 70s. I subscribed to it in the 90s for a few years, and also read it at libraries. Its good quality then and since.
I'm not sure its behind a paywall. There is a large pop up that you accept cookies, as for any site now. I don't have a subscription but can read the whole article.

I'm a registered user for Scientific American and have access to their free articles not their subscribed ones.
I have to pay for the subscription to read the entire article.
I used to buy their magazines prior to the Internet era and recall many subjects were heavy reading and certainly not in the category for light reading for the general public.
So it appears in order to appeal to a larger audience available today it has watered down its standards and used hyperbole as I described in my previous post.

 

[mindlight]

The issues I have here are the supposed implications on cosmology and I can only go by what I have been able to read on the subject.
If you watched the "Don't Panic" video the astronomer was referring to JWST images revealing a large number of disk type (spiral) galaxies which is a problem in explaining the evolution of galaxies.
This issue was known decades before even JWST started to take images.
The ΛCDM model for galaxy formation is based on the following simplified mechanism.

​

A problem with this mechanism it leads to a hierarchical problem as the ΛCDM model prediction underestimates the number of disk like (spiral) galaxies produced from proto-galaxies.
The JWST images have only confirmed the problem but there was no talk about the cosmological model being in trouble amongst scientists as the issue lies with the evolution of the galaxies themselves.
Similarly the evidence of galaxies being at a more mature stage of evolution in the earlier history of the universe in the reionization era again points to the problem being with the evolution of galaxies.
If there was evidence of microwave redshifted galaxies in the dark age the cosmological model would definitely be in trouble hence the Scientific American Title of "JWST's First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology" seems a bit over the top.


I'm a registered user for Scientific American and have access to their free articles not their subscribed ones.
I have to pay for the subscription to read the entire article.
I used to buy their magazines prior to the Internet era and recall many subjects were heavy reading and certainly not in the category for light reading for the general public.
So it appears in order to appeal to a larger audience available today it has watered down its standards and used hyperbole as I described in my previous post.

So you guess that the secret privileged knowledge behind the paywall written in the heavy jargon of the high priests of cosmology may be less panicked by recent discoveries. The hook they use to draw people in to pay for the deeper knowledge is necessary sensationalist marketing with watered-down conclusions.

The fact is that galaxies look fully formed earlier than advertised. This experiment was billed as looking back in time to the early stages of the universe. So seeing fully formed galaxies at the limits of what this telescope can see was expected by the high priests of cosmology but simply not the way they sold the project to the public and the taxpayer?

 

[SelfSim]

The fact is that galaxies look fully formed earlier than advertised. This experiment was billed as looking back in time to the early stages of the universe. So seeing fully formed galaxies at the limits of what this telescope can see was expected by the high priests of cosmology but simply not the way they sold the project to the public and the taxpayer?

So do you think the project was sold as providing the data which would enable completely throwing away the standard cosmological model .. So you feel duped just because you can't see that happening?

 

[Halbhh]

100-250 million years is hundreds {edit: of millions} of years .. So all we're debating there, is the meaning of the word 'mature' then(?)
.. and so? It might not mean any of that also.
'Big deal' .. So now all we're debating is what you mean by a 'big deal', eh?
Major discoveries are just a human craving .. (Y'know .. like a slice of chocolate cake .. ).

There's no need to elevate personal speculations above the pursuit of a rational, methodically-evidenced based explanation.

Well, in subjective views (which everyone has), you could go to the other side and just decide that Webb is so far only a really expensive telescope that only shows us a little new stuff of not much import.... But to me that would be a very unusual view for anyone that is much interested in astronomy.

Sure, these subjective evaluations are indeed different from different people. For instance, would it be a 'big deal' for you if we find the hypothesized planet X thought to have disturbed the orbits of some objects in the Kuiper Belt? To me, that would be sorta anti-climatic, and only a modest discovery, though fun.

A mature galaxy in the early Universe though, isn't anti-climatic, but truly surprising. By 'mature' I'm mean just as I wrote further above, a galaxy that is larger and represents the end product (we have thought!) of many, many mergers of smaller galaxies and clusters over (we have thought!) a very long time period. If such large ('mature') galaxies exist already at merely 200 million years or 300 million after the BB, that's...just really surprising, and it would be thought a major discovery to about 98-99% of astronomers I'd hazard...

If that does turn out to be what we are seeing, which the article I offered you of course says very many alternative explanations might explain, and so there is work to do to figure out what the real situation is....

But, it would be a major discovery to most of us.

 

[Halbhh]

So you guess that the secret privileged knowledge behind the paywall written in the heavy jargon of the high priests of cosmology may be less panicked by recent discoveries. The hook they use to draw people in to pay for the deeper knowledge is necessary sensationalist marketing with watered-down conclusions.

The fact is that galaxies look fully formed earlier than advertised. This experiment was billed as looking back in time to the early stages of the universe. So seeing fully formed galaxies at the limits of what this telescope can see was expected by the high priests of cosmology but simply not the way they sold the project to the public and the taxpayer?

The implication of unexpected very early large galaxies which we thought would take a much longer time to form from very many mergers over time would be only that the process leading to those mergers operates differently than we thought, or possible even that the difference is pretty profound and leads to significant alteration of the leading cosmological model. But that's just business as usual in astronomy really. Major overturnings of dominant models are the norm if you look over a longer time period like 100 years. So, if that happens, it's still just normal progress in understanding we've seen ongoing in astrophysics/cosmology, just like we've seen many times already in the last 100 or so years.

 

[Halbhh]

The JWST images have only confirmed the problem

Well, really, it's more than that, if it turns out as we think we might be seeing. It would mean not merely as already thought since 2011 that mature galaxies formed earlier than thought before then, but if these new seeming dates hold up as what they look like they might be (if not other factors instead), then that timeline change is much more, much more sharp and rapid than thought since the new view circa 2011 and after. It's one thing to realize it likely (since 2011) that such could form in just say 600 million years after the first stars, but if it turns out that these new observations now show such mature galaxies could form in only a mere 100 or 150 million years after the first stars to such a mature galaxy, that's...really something, quite a radical acceleration, or something....
So, instead of saying "The JWST images have only confirmed the problem" we'd have to say something like the JWST images have radically altered even what we had been thinking would be a relatively faster formation of such as thought since 2011 -- if it pans out we are seeing what it seems like we are seeing at the moment.

 

[sjastro]

So you guess that the secret privileged knowledge behind the paywall written in the heavy jargon of the high priests of cosmology may be less panicked by recent discoveries. The hook they use to draw people in to pay for the deeper knowledge is necessary sensationalist marketing with watered-down conclusions.

The fact is that galaxies look fully formed earlier than advertised. This experiment was billed as looking back in time to the early stages of the universe. So seeing fully formed galaxies at the limits of what this telescope can see was expected by the high priests of cosmology but simply not the way they sold the project to the public and the taxpayer?

First of all it is against forum rules for the reference to “high priests of cosmology” implying the science is a religion.
For your reference the forum rules state.
Do not flame other views. Christianity cannot be called a myth, and science cannot be called a religion or made up. Threads started, or responses made, to simply disparage science will be considered off topic to the forum.

Secondly now that you have made your intentions perfectly clear the original post was constructed under false pretenses.
It was never about discussing whether Webb is a challenge to existing models as you had already made up your mind the science is nothing more than a money making religion, this is about clutching at straws for the validation of YEC.
Since this is about YEC in a science forum, show us the evidence supporting a 6000 year old cosmological model.
Don’t use the false dichotomy tricks frequently employed that YEC is right because BB cosmology, radiometric dating, evolution, geology, paleontology and archaeology are all wrong.

 

[sjastro]

Well, really, it's more than that, if it turns out as we think we might be seeing. It would mean not merely as already thought since 2011 that mature galaxies formed earlier than thought before then, but if these new seeming dates hold up as what they look like they might be (if not other factors instead), then that timeline change is much more, much more sharp and rapid than thought since the new view circa 2011 and after. It's one thing to realize it likely (since 2011) that such could form in just say 600 million years after the first stars, but if it turns out that these new observations now show such mature galaxies could form in only a mere 100 or 150 million years after the first stars to such a mature galaxy, that's...really something, quite a radical acceleration, or something....
So, instead of saying "The JWST images have only confirmed the problem" we'd have to say something like the JWST images have radically altered even what we had been thinking would be a relatively faster formation of such as thought since 2011 -- if it pans out we are seeing what it seems like we are seeing at the moment.

Your have missed the point of my post, the issue is the cosmological model being put under the spotlight.
There are far more pressing concerns which relate directly to the model such as the is a difference in the Hubble constant value when using standard candles and the temperature fluctuations in the CMB resulting in different age calculations of the universe.

Given the problems in galaxy formation and evolution was known before the advent of the Webb observations where was the hoopla over questioning the cosmological model in the past?
Webb simply confirmed the problem along with adding a few other twists.

By challenging the validity of the cosmological model the evolution of galaxies becomes irrelevant as their very existence can no longer be explained.
The ΛCDM model based on BB cosmology offers an explanation; the origins of galaxies began as quantum fluctuations of the vacuum, the details of which are described in this post.
The evidence is these quantum fluctuations ended up as over density regions in the CMB due to the minute temperature variations measured which provided the initial conditions for the formation of structures such as stars and galaxies.

The other problem by questioning the validity of the cosmological model requires an alternative explanation for the successful predictions such as the existence of the CMB, the ratios of the primordial elements H, He and Li and the very nature of expansion itself.

It’s for these reasons the overwhelming consensus amongst scientists it is not the cosmological model that needs looking at but the dynamics of galaxy evolution itself.

 

[SelfSim]

Well, in subjective views (which everyone has), you could go to the other side and just decide that Webb is so far only a really expensive telescope that only shows us a little new stuff of not much import.... But to me that would be a very unusual view for anyone that is much interested in astronomy.

Sure, these subjective evaluations are indeed different from different people. For instance, would it be a 'big deal' for you if we find the hypothesized planet X thought to have disturbed the orbits of some objects in the Kuiper Belt? To me, that would be sorta anti-climatic, and only a modest discovery, though fun.

A mature galaxy in the early Universe though, isn't anti-climatic, but truly surprising. By 'mature' I'm mean just as I wrote further above, a galaxy that is larger and represents the end product (we have thought!) of many, many mergers of smaller galaxies and clusters over (we have thought!) a very long time period. If such large ('mature') galaxies exist already at merely 200 million years or 300 million after the BB, that's...just really surprising, and it would be thought a major discovery to about 98-99% of astronomers I'd hazard...

If that does turn out to be what we are seeing, which the article I offered you of course says very many alternative explanations might explain, and so there is work to do to figure out what the real situation is....

But, it would be a major discovery to most of us.

IMO, its not really worthwhile (IMO) arguing further over subjective views various interest groups might hypothetically feel. Let's just wait and see, in order to resolve that one, eh?

What is intriguing to me however, is the way you appear to be clinging onto the standard cosmological model as being some kind of 'truth' or something(?) Its not .. and never has been.
Perhaps that's where your assessments of so-called 'major impacts is really coming from(?)

 

[mindlight]

First of all it is against forum rules for the reference to “high priests of cosmology” implying the science is a religion.
For your reference the forum rules state.
Do not flame other views. Christianity cannot be called a myth, and science cannot be called a religion or made up. Threads started, or responses made, to simply disparage science will be considered off topic to the forum.

Secondly now that you have made your intentions perfectly clear the original post was constructed under false pretenses.
It was never about discussing whether Webb is a challenge to existing models as you had already made up your mind the science is nothing more than a money making religion, this is about clutching at straws for the validation of YEC.
Since this is about YEC in a science forum, show us the evidence supporting a 6000 year old cosmological model.
Don’t use the false dichotomy tricks frequently employed that YEC is right because BB cosmology, radiometric dating, evolution, geology, paleontology and archaeology are all wrong.

This thread was started with a genuine intent to find out more about this experiment. Sorry, you cannot handle creative phrasing but the question is a legitimate one. If the experiment was never intended to find unformed early galaxies why was it billed like that? If what you said was right in the post I originally responded to then the budget these scientists obtained was obtained under false pretenses. Or you could just be wrong about that.

 

[SelfSim]

If the experiment was never intended to find unformed early galaxies why was it billed like that?

Can you provide official JWST team references demonstrating your underlined claim?

If what you said was right in the post I originally responded to then the budget these scientists obtained was obtained under false pretenses. Or you could just be wrong about that.

You need to provide JWST's budget bid papers .. rather than just making up your own claims.

 

[sjastro]

This thread was started with a genuine intent to find out more about this experiment. Sorry, you cannot handle creative phrasing but the question is a legitimate one. If the experiment was never intended to find unformed early galaxies why was it billed like that? If what you said was right in the post I originally responded to then the budget these scientists obtained was obtained under false pretenses. Or you could just be wrong about that.

Who are you trying to kid?
In the very first post of this thread you made this comment.
"Are old universe believers saying that the universe is bigger or older than previously expected?"
If this is not made from a YEC perspective it is a totally meaningless comment.

I think you are confused about the JWST mission intent.
Here is the JWST Mission Statement.

James Webb Space Telescope Science
The James Webb Space Telescope will be a giant leap forward in our quest to understand the Universe and our origins. JWST will examine every phase of cosmic history: from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang to the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets to the evolution of our own solar system. The science goals for the Webb can be grouped into four themes:

• The End of the Dark Ages: First Light and Reionization - JWST will be a powerful time machine with infrared vision that will peer back over 13.5 billion years to see the first stars and galaxies forming out of the darkness of the early universe.
• Assembly of Galaxies - JWST's unprecedented infrared sensitivity will help astronomers to compare the faintest, earliest galaxies to today's grand spirals and ellipticals, helping us to understand how galaxies assemble over billions of years.
• The Birth of Stars and Protoplanetary Systems - JWST will be able to see right through and into massive clouds of dust that are opaque to visible-light observatories like Hubble, where stars and planetary systems are being born.
• Planetary Systems and the Origins of Life - JWST will tell us more about the atmospheres of extrasolar planets, and perhaps even find the building blocks of life elsewhere in the universe. In addition to other planetary systems, JWST will also study objects within our own Solar System.

Note the in first paragraph the mission statement makes it perfectly clear the design intent of the mission is based on the assumption the ΛCDM model is the correct model and the mission is not out to test the model.
In the first two bullet points the objectives are to increase our understanding of how galaxies evolve which is a separate subject altogether from the cosmological model which I have been trying to emphasize in this thread.
Testing the cosmological model by probing the CMB which is beyond JWST's range has been done by Planck, WMAP and COBE.

 

[mindlight]

Can you provide official JWST team references demonstrating your underlined claim?
You need to provide JWST's budget bid papers .. rather than just making up your own claims.

The mission statement says it:

James Webb Space Telescope Science
The James Webb Space Telescope will be a giant leap forward in our quest to understand the Universe and our origins. JWST will examine every phase of cosmic history: from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang to the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets to the evolution of our own solar system. The science goals for the Webb can be grouped into four themes:

• The End of the Dark Ages: First Light and Reionization - JWST will be a powerful time machine with infrared vision that will peer back over 13.5 billion years to see the first stars and galaxies forming out of the darkness of the early universe.
• Assembly of Galaxies - JWST's unprecedented infrared sensitivity will help astronomers to compare the faintest, earliest galaxies to today's grand spirals and ellipticals, helping us to understand how galaxies assemble over billions of years.
• The Birth of Stars and Protoplanetary Systems - JWST will be able to see right through and into massive clouds of dust that are opaque to visible-light observatories like Hubble, where stars and planetary systems are being born.
• Planetary Systems and the Origins of Life - JWST will tell us more about the atmospheres of extrasolar planets, and perhaps even find the building blocks of life elsewhere in the universe. In addition to other planetary systems, JWST will also study objects within our own Solar System.

But of course, all we are seeing is fully mature galaxies. I do not begrudge the money spent, the pictures are amazing. It is also possible that the scientists themselves allowed their convictions about galaxy evolution to influence the wording here. It is clearly a surprise to them that there is such a profound challenge to the evolution of galaxies' timeline from this experiment. The early stages of galaxy formation, star and planet formation are simply not there.

 

[mindlight]

Who are you trying to kid?
In the very first post of this thread you made this comment.
"Are old universe believers saying that the universe is bigger or older than previously expected?"
If this is not made from a YEC perspective it is a totally meaningless comment.

I think you are confused about the JWST mission intent.
Here is the JWST Mission Statement.


Note the in first paragraph the mission statement makes it perfectly clear the design intent of the mission is based on the assumption the ΛCDM model is the correct model and the mission is not out to test the model.
In the first two bullet points the objectives are to increase our understanding of how galaxies evolve which is a separate subject altogether from the cosmological model which I have been trying to emphasize in this thread.
Testing the cosmological model by probing the CMB which is beyond JWST's range has been done by Planck, WMAP and COBE.

I believe in the scientific method as far as it is able to prove stuff. Empirically this worthwhile experiment can neither verify nor disprove the cosmological model JWST assumes is true. But the insights obtained about galaxy evolution are very interesting. What they show, thus far, is that we cannot see any major evidence of the galaxy evolution that was expected in the timezone that the JWST observes. The expectation of this is clearly expressed in the mission statement you just quoted. This may also have implications for the study of star and planet formation.

 

[mindlight]

The implication of unexpected very early large galaxies which we thought would take a much longer time to form from very many mergers over time would be only that the process leading to those mergers operates differently than we thought, or possible even that the difference is pretty profound and leads to significant alteration of the leading cosmological model. But that's just business as usual in astronomy really. Major overturnings of dominant models are the norm if you look over a longer time period like 100 years. So, if that happens, it's still just normal progress in understanding we've seen ongoing in astrophysics/cosmology, just like we've seen many times already in the last 100 or so years.

Agreed, this is all very exciting and it just shows the value of the experiment as it challenges existing assumptions. But the lack of galaxy evolution at these early stages is a very profound challenge to the model they have assumed here. Maybe everything was simply created as it is right now and the JWST has just pushed the possibility of that to a higher level by failing to verify galaxy evolution is occurring at these expected stages.