I JWST breaks another Redshift record

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Oldman too
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    jwst Redshift
Oldman too
Messages
259
Reaction score
489
TL;DR Summary
A new paper puts a Galaxy's Redshift at z = 16.7
A paper just out seems to describe a galaxy formed ~250 myr after the BB. One of many records that JWST will be both setting and breaking as the data pours in. With the papers focus on UV, this is probably going to be a Pop 3 star search. Section 6.2 of the paper describes the studies findings on the object in question.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.12356.pdf
"Finally in addition to the other sources discussed earlier in this
work we highlight the apparent discovery of an object with a well
constrained photometric redshift of 𝑧 = 16.7L corresponding to a
time just ' 250 myr after the big bang"
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes afmayer, Drakkith, ohwilleke and 3 others
Space news on Phys.org
Oldman too said:
Summary: A new paper puts a Galaxy's Redshift at z = 16.7

A paper just out seems to describe a galaxy formed ~250 myr after the BB. One of many records that JWST will be both setting and breaking as the data pours in. With the papers focus on UV, this is probably going to be a Pop 3 star search. Section 6.2 of the paper describes the studies findings on the object in question.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.12356.pdf
"Finally in addition to the other sources discussed earlier in this
work we highlight the apparent discovery of an object with a well
constrained photometric redshift of 𝑧 = 16.7L corresponding to a
time just ' 250 myr after the big bang"
Wow!
What are limitations? Presumably these images are no where near the exposure time of Hubble?
Hubble took a few weeks on the famous deep field and Webb produced far higher resolution/detail of the same area in 12 hours.
Does this mean Webb spending 4 weeks on one spot will produce the deepest that can be achieved?
 
  • Like
Likes Oldman too and vanhees71
pinball1970 said:
Wow!
That's what I said too!
pinball1970 said:
What are limitations?
I think Webb just may push limitations to the limit, what would z = 20 look like on the cosmological timeline? https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.11558
pinball1970 said:
Does this mean Webb spending 4 weeks on one spot will produce the deepest that can be achieved?
Not really sure, it doesn't look like 4 weeks of exposure would accomplish anything that 12 to 24 hours total time won't do. As for one spot, with the micro-shutter system, this is one multitasking telescope, roughly 250,000 independent shutters means a lot of targets can be simultaneously studied.
https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-ne...nstrumentation/nirspec-micro-shutter-assembly
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes ohwilleke, vanhees71 and pinball1970
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top