James Webb challenge to existing models

[SelfSim]

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.

Ok .. thanks for that.
I don't see any 'false advertising' there.
JWST is doing exactly what that list of objectives requires(?)

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.

The early stages are there. What the images show is more galaxies with more detail of the structures than was previously available.
Those images will enable comparisons with other more local galaxies .. So what?
'Fully mature' doesn't define some kind of fixed, absolute criterion y'know(?)
I don't agree that its a 'profound challenge' to the BB cosmology.

 

[SelfSim]

.. 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.

I don't see anything there which remotely suggests that the 'galaxy evolution' process hasn't occurred at these early stages(?)

 

[sjastro]

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.

Nothing is proved in science only disproven or supported by evidence.
The evidence is only as good as the experiments and observations which provide it.
Experiments and observations are also used to test theories not verify them.

Newton showed the moon followed a Keplerian (repeatable) orbit which was supported by observations until Apollo astronauts put mirrors on the moon and the Earth Moon distance could be determined with greater accuracy using lasers.
It was found the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth hence the orbit is not Keplerian.
This is how science works, nothing is assumed to be true or proven even if it was supported by over 200 years of observations.

In the case of JWST the assumption of BB cosmology being “true” is based on design considerations.
NASA and ESA designed JWST as an infrared telescope as the BB model is an expansion model of the universe where distant galaxies are cosmologically redshifted into the infrared range.
If the universe was static, the JWST design would be inferior for distant observations as a large percentage of blackbody radiation from stars also comes from the visible and to a lesser extent the UV part of the spectrum which would not be redshifted.

The fact that JWST images are showing very distant galaxies in large numbers and in detail indicates assuming the BB model to be true in the design consideration has paid off handsomely as well as providing supportive evidence for the model in the process.

 

[Estrid]

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.

That's like me saying I believe you so far
as you can jump over the moon.
Science does not prove things.
Might be good to learn what science is
and does before deciding what you believe

 

[Halbhh]

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.

Maybe. There are many possibilities. For example, it could turn out we discovery (this is just a speculation on one possibility) that large galaxies formed right along at the same time as the very many smaller ones we expected, so that instead of many smaller clusters and tiny galaxies needing to merge to form larger ones, then in that speculative case, a good number of very large ones might have formed during those very early years somehow (such as perhaps could be some odd thing such dark matter somehow clumping sooner than expected or such). This speculative idea is just meant to show there are many possibilities.

The article I offered actually points out many other possibilities that could potentially turn out to help explain the unexpectedly large number of bright galaxies.
@sjastro I just realized the other day I'd not directly quoted the many other possibilities in that article at SA about the other possible explanations. I'll try to get to that.

 

[Halbhh]

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(?)

Probably you should rely less on guessing or imagining how I think -- 'you appear to be clinging onto the standard cosmological model as being some kind of 'truth' -- because you guess so wrong a lot when you try to guess at what I think. Just ask me instead. I'll tell you plainly and straight precisely what I think about whatever topic, if you would merely ask.

 

[Halbhh]

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.

That might turn out to be related. That was one of the possibilities that came to mind a couple months back, when the seeming overabundance of seemingly very large early galaxies seemed to be what we might be seeing.

Now, the SA article I offered you gives many other possible explanations which might possibly turn out to account for the seeming overabundance early large galaxies.

Speaking of which, I didn't quote those to you, since I expected you'd be able to read the article and see them, so I only mentioned to you that the article gives other possibilities.

It might help if I quote the article on the other possibilities, since you can't get the full article.

There are several other possibilities the article mentioned.

In no particular order. And all needing more investigation:


In their thirst for quick results, the researchers relied on redshift estimates derived from simple brightness-based measurements. These are easier to obtain, but less precise than direct measurements of redshift, which require more dedicated observation time. Nonetheless, the simplified technique can be accurate, and here it suggested a galaxy that was unexpectedly bright and big, already bearing a mass of stars of a billion suns, just a few hundred times less than that of the Milky Way, despite our own galaxy being billions of years more mature. ....

Some of these galaxies may be impostors, much closer galaxies shrouded in dust that makes them look dimmer and further away when brightness-based measurements are used. However, follow-up observations of GLASS-z13 in August by the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile suggest that is not the case for this candidate, as ALMA did not see evidence for large amounts of dust. ...

One simpler solution is that galaxies in the early universe could have little or no dust, making them appear brighter. This scenario could confound efforts to calculate the galaxies’ true masses and could perhaps also explain ALMA’s difficulty spotting GLASS-z13. “It could be that supernovae didn’t have enough time to produce the dust, or maybe in the initial phases [of galaxy formation] the dust is expelled from galaxies,” says Andrea Ferrara, an astronomer at the Scuola Normale Superiore university in Italy who has proposed such a possibility.

Alternatively, Mason and colleagues suggest that in its early-universe observations JWST may so far only be seeing the very brightest young galaxies, as they should be the easiest to spot. “Maybe there’s something happening in the early universe that means it’s easier for some galaxies to form stars,” she says.
[that's a pretty interesting possibility imo]

David Spergel, a renowned theoretical astrophysicist and current president of the Simons Foundation in New York, agrees. “I think what we’re seeing is that high-mass star formation is very efficient in the early universe,” he says. “The gas pressures are higher. The temperatures are higher. That has an enormous impact on the environment for star formation.” Perhaps even magnetic fields arose earlier in the universe than we thought, playing a crucial role in driving material to kick-start the birth of stars. “We might be seeing a signature of magnetic fields emerging very early in the universe’s history,” Spergel says.

The article points out: "Astronomers are now racing to conduct follow-up observations with JWST ...."

"More upcoming programs are set to hunt for distant galaxies, such as COSMOS-Webb, led by Kartaltepe, which is expected to hugely increase the population of early galaxies by observing a wider swath of sky for hundreds of hours. “We estimate there are thousands we’ll be able to detect,” she says. Future proposals might look for evidence of those first protogalaxies, perhaps using the explosive deaths of supersized first stars in especially luminous and energetic supernovae as markers for their existence. Some estimates suggest JWST could see as far as a redshift of 26, just 120 million years after the big bang, a cosmic blink of an eye. Much other work will be done to follow-up the growing list of high redshift candidates. “Even confirming a handful of these would be quite amazing,” Naidu says. “It would demonstrate we’re not getting fooled.”

"JWST has been the springboard for an unprecedented era of science; and despite all the uncertainties, the rapid exchange of ideas as new discoveries are made and immediately publicized has invigorated astronomers. “It’s been fantastic,” says Treu. “It’s really wonderful to see the community so engaged and excited.” Now the question is, if we can truly believe what we are seeing, is it time to reappraise our understanding of the dawn of time? “We’re peering into the unknown,” Mason says.

JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology

 

[Halbhh]

A short(er) wait for one of the most fascinating things: how soon large galaxies formed.

Before the first major JWST images were released on July 12th, I was looking forward in particular, more than anything else, to see more about early galaxies that might form much earlier than thought (into larger galaxies), to get further back in time (to earlier in the Universe) and see what is there....

As I wrote above back then:

(June 24th
"Here's one that is really interesting to me:

"For decades, telescopes have helped us capture light from galaxies that formed as far back as 400 million years after the big bang—incredibly early in the context of the universe's 13.8-billion-year history. But what were galaxies like that existed even earlier ... With Webb's observations, researchers will be able to tell us about the makeup and composition of individual galaxies in the early universe for the first time."

Never yet observed even earlier-in-time galaxies. The early galaxies we have seen in recent years surprised us already, just for forming sooner than had been expected, showing previous ideas about when galaxies first formed were incorrect.
​

I didn't know that this would become 1 of the 2 most compelling goals astronomers are eager now here in October to pursue above all other observing goals (even tied or probably exceeding interest in exoplanet atmospheres).

So, that now many groups and much coming observation is focused on early galaxies in particular. How delightful!

You don't always get soon what you'd like the most, but usually have to wait for long years. That wait is now going to be very much shorter.

​

"More upcoming programs are set to hunt for distant galaxies, such as COSMOS-Webb, led by Kartaltepe, which is expected to hugely increase the population of early galaxies by observing a wider swath of sky for hundreds of hours. “We estimate there are thousands we’ll be able to detect,” she says. Future proposals might look for evidence of those first protogalaxies, perhaps using the explosive deaths of supersized first stars in especially luminous and energetic supernovae as markers for their existence. Some estimates suggest JWST could see as far as a redshift of 26, just 120 million years after the big bang, a cosmic blink of an eye. Much other work will be done to follow-up the growing list of high redshift candidates. “Even confirming a handful of these would be quite amazing,” Naidu says. “It would demonstrate we’re not getting fooled.”

JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology

June 24th post on this:​

Here's a great article I saw yesterday, with more exciting detail imo, about some observing goals:

https://phys.org/news/2022-06-nasa-webb-uncover-riches-early.html

Here's one that is really interesting to me:

For decades, telescopes have helped us capture light from galaxies that formed as far back as 400 million years after the big bang—incredibly early in the context of the universe's 13.8-billion-year history. But what were galaxies like that existed even earlier, when the universe was semi-transparent at the beginning of a period known as the Era of Reionization? NASA's next flagship observatory, the James Webb Space Telescope, is poised to add new riches to our wealth of knowledge not only by capturing images from galaxies that existed as early as the first few hundred million years after the big bang, but also by giving us detailed data known as spectra. With Webb's observations, researchers will be able to tell us about the makeup and composition of individual galaxies in the early universe for the first time.

Never yet observed even earlier-in-time galaxies. The early galaxies we have seen in recent years surprised us already, just for forming sooner than had been expected, showing previous ideas about when galaxies first formed were incorrect.

 

[John of Seabeck]

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.

Absolutely true. Our vision is cut at about 380 million years post creation. It will always be so. God meant for us to KNOW about creation; but not to know the HOW of Creation. We are meant to marvel, but not to be able to unravel; at least not while we occupy space-time. But NOTHING is truly “hidden”, and our remarkable evolved quantum brains CAN disambiguate, at least tentatively. And that is what we are permitted to do; and God encourages us to do so.

The James-Webb details of the very early universe are likely not as it actually unfolded. The first stars were massive; mainly Hydrogen gas in enormous proportion to the two or three other elements formed at the point of creation [He and Li, mainly] and all else was radiation/energy and heat [electromagnetism]. But the fact that we are able to see even this is a blessing beyond what might have been expected.

What we really need to know more about is cold dark matter [CDM]. CDM is gravitationally VERY active which is how we know it is real. Otherwise it [CDM] is as close to a spiritual material as one can conceptualize. Other than gravity, which we know by its effect on photons [light] by gravitational lensing; it is not interactive with that of which we are composed [called “ordinary” or baryonic/hadronic matter] at all.

We also now know our space-time COMPONENT of God’s universe emerged, and it supported and is sustained by His. Our piece of the total was created, and is sustained at His command through techniques He provides … continuously. There are over 200 critically important Constants recognized in our physics that demand fine tuning beyond probability. To calculated levels of 10-40,000 versus “chance”.

Furthermore, our space-time universe …including all the eventual galaxies emerged supported BY CDM! Without CDM, [as well as supermassive black holes (SMBH) at almost all their centers] …the universe we occupy could NOT exist. CDM acts literally like a scaffolding [hanger] upon which ordinary matter is draped!

Some speculate that CDM is in fact is THE material component of God’s paradigm or Kingdom [Heaven]. That a big speculation we are permitted, but because secular science at the present is so bent on denying a Creator, no real research is in place to evaluate that possibility.

Everything relative to CDM is currently focused on what CDM “might” actually be. That is: …at what point after the Creation event did CDM emerge? A few have really more properly speculated that CDM in fact MAY have preceded the “Big Bang”; MAY have in fact been a causal component of the event itself; but other than “multiverse” speculations, Cosmologists have no theoretical or analytic methods to sustain that theory.

Things are gradually changing; but those efforts at considering CDM as a spiritual reality will not bear fruit until a true spiritual awakening has taken place among our people. But stay tuned! God is raising the curtain in the minds of many of our scientists. Amen


John of Seabeck 1056 hours PST 10-17-2022

 

[John of Seabeck]

A CHRISTIAN'S RE
Absolutely true. Our vision is cut at about 380 million years post creation. It will always be so. God meant for us to KNOW about creation; but not to know the HOW of Creation. We are meant to marvel, but not to be able to unravel; at least not while we occupy space-time. But NOTHING is truly “hidden”, and our remarkable evolved quantum brains CAN disambiguate, at least tentatively. And that is what we are permitted to do; and God encourages us to do so.

The James-Webb details of the very early universe are likely not as it actually unfolded. The first stars were massive; mainly Hydrogen gas in enormous proportion to the two or three other elements formed at the point of creation [He and Li, mainly] and all else was radiation/energy and heat [electromagnetism]. But the fact that we are able to see even this is a blessing beyond what might have been expected.

What we really need to know more about is cold dark matter [CDM]. CDM is gravitationally VERY active which is how we know it is real. Otherwise it [CDM] is as close to a spiritual material as one can conceptualize. Other than gravity, which we know by its effect on photons [light] by gravitational lensing; it is not interactive with that of which we are composed [called “ordinary” or baryonic/hadronic matter] at all.

We also now know our space-time COMPONENT of God’s universe emerged, and it supported and is sustained by His. Our piece of the total was created, and is sustained at His command through techniques He provides … continuously. There are over 200 critically important Constants recognized in our physics that demand fine tuning beyond probability. To calculated levels of 10-40,000 versus “chance”.

Furthermore, our space-time universe …including all the eventual galaxies emerged supported BY CDM! Without CDM, [as well as supermassive black holes (SMBH) at almost all their centers] …the universe we occupy could NOT exist. CDM acts literally like a scaffolding [hanger] upon which ordinary matter is draped!

Some speculate that CDM is in fact is THE material component of God’s paradigm or Kingdom [Heaven]. That a big speculation we are permitted, but because secular science at the present is so bent on denying a Creator, no real research is in place to evaluate that possibility.

Everything relative to CDM is currently focused on what CDM “might” actually be. That is: …at what point after the Creation event did CDM emerge? A few have really more properly speculated that CDM in fact MAY have preceded the “Big Bang”; MAY have in fact been a causal component of the event itself; but other than “multiverse” speculations, Cosmologists have no theoretical or analytic methods to sustain that theory.

Things are gradually changing; but those efforts at considering CDM as a spiritual reality will not bear fruit until a true spiritual awakening has taken place among our people. But stay tuned! God is raising the curtain in the minds of many of our scientists. Amen


John of Seabeck 1056 hours PST 10-17-2022


SPONSE:

 

[sjastro]

That might turn out to be related. That was one of the possibilities that came to mind a couple months back, when the seeming overabundance of seemingly very large early galaxies seemed to be what we might be seeing.

Now, the SA article I offered you gives many other possible explanations which might possibly turn out to account for the seeming overabundance early large galaxies.

Speaking of which, I didn't quote those to you, since I expected you'd be able to read the article and see them, so I only mentioned to you that the article gives other possibilities.

It might help if I quote the article on the other possibilities, since you can't get the full article.

There are several other possibilities the article mentioned.

In no particular order. And all needing more investigation:


In their thirst for quick results, the researchers relied on redshift estimates derived from simple brightness-based measurements. These are easier to obtain, but less precise than direct measurements of redshift, which require more dedicated observation time. Nonetheless, the simplified technique can be accurate, and here it suggested a galaxy that was unexpectedly bright and big, already bearing a mass of stars of a billion suns, just a few hundred times less than that of the Milky Way, despite our own galaxy being billions of years more mature. ....

Some of these galaxies may be impostors, much closer galaxies shrouded in dust that makes them look dimmer and further away when brightness-based measurements are used. However, follow-up observations of GLASS-z13 in August by the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile suggest that is not the case for this candidate, as ALMA did not see evidence for large amounts of dust. ...

One simpler solution is that galaxies in the early universe could have little or no dust, making them appear brighter. This scenario could confound efforts to calculate the galaxies’ true masses and could perhaps also explain ALMA’s difficulty spotting GLASS-z13. “It could be that supernovae didn’t have enough time to produce the dust, or maybe in the initial phases [of galaxy formation] the dust is expelled from galaxies,” says Andrea Ferrara, an astronomer at the Scuola Normale Superiore university in Italy who has proposed such a possibility.

Alternatively, Mason and colleagues suggest that in its early-universe observations JWST may so far only be seeing the very brightest young galaxies, as they should be the easiest to spot. “Maybe there’s something happening in the early universe that means it’s easier for some galaxies to form stars,” she says.
[that's a pretty interesting possibility imo]

David Spergel, a renowned theoretical astrophysicist and current president of the Simons Foundation in New York, agrees. “I think what we’re seeing is that high-mass star formation is very efficient in the early universe,” he says. “The gas pressures are higher. The temperatures are higher. That has an enormous impact on the environment for star formation.” Perhaps even magnetic fields arose earlier in the universe than we thought, playing a crucial role in driving material to kick-start the birth of stars. “We might be seeing a signature of magnetic fields emerging very early in the universe’s history,” Spergel says.

The article points out: "Astronomers are now racing to conduct follow-up observations with JWST ...."

"More upcoming programs are set to hunt for distant galaxies, such as COSMOS-Webb, led by Kartaltepe, which is expected to hugely increase the population of early galaxies by observing a wider swath of sky for hundreds of hours. “We estimate there are thousands we’ll be able to detect,” she says. Future proposals might look for evidence of those first protogalaxies, perhaps using the explosive deaths of supersized first stars in especially luminous and energetic supernovae as markers for their existence. Some estimates suggest JWST could see as far as a redshift of 26, just 120 million years after the big bang, a cosmic blink of an eye. Much other work will be done to follow-up the growing list of high redshift candidates. “Even confirming a handful of these would be quite amazing,” Naidu says. “It would demonstrate we’re not getting fooled.”

"JWST has been the springboard for an unprecedented era of science; and despite all the uncertainties, the rapid exchange of ideas as new discoveries are made and immediately publicized has invigorated astronomers. “It’s been fantastic,” says Treu. “It’s really wonderful to see the community so engaged and excited.” Now the question is, if we can truly believe what we are seeing, is it time to reappraise our understanding of the dawn of time? “We’re peering into the unknown,” Mason says.

JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology

Thanks for that.
I now find I have full access to the article when I log in on my mobile phone but not my computer.
It's one of those mysteries of the universe.

 

[SelfSim]

Probably you should rely less on guessing or imagining how I think -- 'you appear to be clinging onto the standard cosmological model as being some kind of 'truth' -- because you guess so wrong a lot when you try to guess at what I think. Just ask me instead. I'll tell you plainly and straight precisely what I think about whatever topic, if you would merely ask.

Hmm .. a rather intense reaction to my hypothesising (which was based on the appearance of your posts). Interesting. Your point accepted however.

There's a long way to go, (and lots more hypothesising needed), in order to explain the apparent state of development of those distant JWST galaxy observations, however.

 

[mindlight]

That's like me saying I believe you so far
as you can jump over the moon.
Science does not prove things.
Might be good to learn what science is
and does before deciding what you believe

There are higher authorities than science. I trust only what can be proven, the rest is guessing or faith.

 

[driewerf]

There are higher authorities than science. I trust only what can be proven, the rest is guessing or faith.

What is in matter of science a higher authority than science? And what can that authority proof and test?
Please be specific.

 

[Estrid]

There are higher authorities than science. I trust only what can be proven, the rest is guessing or faith.

What authorities are those?
How do they "prove," things?

Science does percents, not proof. Probabilities.

Something demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt
leaves you only with unreasonable doubt.

 

[AV1611VET]

What authorities are those?

God.

How do they "prove," things?

The same way anyone "proves his authority:" by flashing his badge.

God flashes His badge: the Bible.

Science does percents, not proof. Probabilities.

Neat. So does my calculator.

Something demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt leaves you only with unreasonable doubt.

And science is good at creating reasonable doubt.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There are higher authorities than science. I trust only what can be proven, the rest is guessing or faith.

"Science" isn't an authority or organization. It is a process for discovering things about the natural world and the results of those discoveries. (The word is used for both the process and the results.)

I know of no higher authority on the natural world than the data.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Science" isn't an authority or organization. It is a process for discovering things about the natural world and the results of those discoveries. (The word is used for both the process and the results.)

See what science can do to you?

↓​

I know of no higher authority on the natural world than the data.

 

[mindlight]

"Science" isn't an authority or organization. It is a process for discovering things about the natural world and the results of those discoveries. (The word is used for both the process and the results.)

I know of no higher authority on the natural world than the data.

Facts speak for themselves and speculations do not. There is no shame in saying we just do not know about things we cannot prove. Too much of modern science is devoted to filling the void with noise.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Facts speak for themselves and speculations do not. There is no shame in saying we just do not know about things we cannot prove. Too much of modern science is devoted to filling the void with noise.

What speculations are we talking of here?