'Universe Breaking' results from JWST -- What does this mean?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Cerenkov
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    jwst Mean
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around recent findings from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) regarding the early formation of massive galaxies shortly after the Big Bang. Participants explore the implications of these findings on the LambdaCDM model of cosmology, particularly addressing the "impossible early galaxy problem." The conversation includes inquiries about the validity of the claims and the associated scientific literature.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express curiosity about the significance of the JWST findings and seek expert commentary on the implications for cosmology.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of a direct link to a scientific paper initially, questioning the credibility of the claims without peer-reviewed support.
  • A participant later provides a link to a relevant paper in Nature, suggesting that it confirms the existence of massive galaxies at redshifts earlier than previously predicted.
  • The paper discusses the identification of galaxies with stellar masses up to ~1011 solar masses existing as early as 500-700 million years after the Big Bang, challenging existing models of galaxy formation.
  • Participants note that the findings contradict earlier predictions made by the LambdaCDM model, which suggested that such massive galaxies should not exist until later epochs.
  • Some contributions reference the "impossible early galaxies problem," highlighting the tension between observational data and theoretical predictions regarding galaxy formation timelines.
  • There is mention of various models and hypotheses regarding galaxy formation, including the hierarchical merging paradigm and its implications for understanding the early universe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion reflects a lack of consensus, with multiple competing views on the implications of the JWST findings for the LambdaCDM model. Participants express differing opinions on the significance of the observations and the validity of the theoretical frameworks in light of new data.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the findings may challenge established models, but there are uncertainties regarding the interpretations of the data and the assumptions underlying the LambdaCDM model. The discussion highlights the complexities involved in reconciling observational evidence with theoretical predictions.

  • #31
And reopened after removing an off-topic digression
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970 and weirdoguy
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
BWV said:
can the metallicity...f these stars
Doubtful. They don'y even have a real redshift - just photometry.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BWV
  • #33
Vanadium 50 said:
The code authors claim it is goof to Z=4,
OK, this is definitely one of your typos you should definitely fix. :oldbiggrin:

Vanadium 50 said:
Now Sabine is mononymic like Cher, Madonna and Prince?
And Lubos. You forgot Lubos. (Otoh, I wish I could.)
 
Reply
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and ohwilleke
  • #34
pinball1970 said:
Sabine has said that dark matter predictions are not matching up to observations but MOND is.
Stacy McGaugh's blog Triton Station is probably a better source for what's going on with actual data vs theories. He has just now (10-Mar-2023) put out a new post about this. One of the things he reminds is that this business about "big galaxies early" was a prediction of MOND. See his post from 3-Jan-2022.
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71, ohwilleke and pinball1970
  • #35
strangerep said:
OK, this is definitely one of your typos you should definitely fix. :oldbiggrin:
More of a Freudian slip. Photometric redfshifts are little better tnan "Golly, it sure looks red". Yes, someimes that's all you have, but it's hard to get excited until the real data - i.e. spectroscopic redshifts - come in.

No matter what Beyonce and JayZ post on their blogs.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970
  • #36
Vanadium 50 said:
More of a Freudian slip. Photometric redfshifts are little better tnan "Golly, it sure looks red". Yes, someimes that's all you have, but it's hard to get excited until the real data - i.e. spectroscopic redshifts - come in.

No matter what Beyonce and JayZ post on their blogs.
Agreed. The papers will be published and bloggers and YouTubers will comment including The Hoss and others but ultimately, it will be discussion on PF that will make sense of it all. To me at least.
 
  • #37
pinball1970 said:
[...] The Hoss [...]
:oldlaugh:
 

Similar threads

High School Questions about Lagrange points in the Pluto / Charon system
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Questions about a paper on reconciling JWST and HST data
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School Is the barycentre of the Pluto - Charon system also the L1 point?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High School Questions about the Eddington Limit and Super - Eddington black holes
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
High School Where can I find easy-to-understand GAIA exoplanet data?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Cosmological time dilation of high-redshift quasars
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
High School An old spin to our Universe
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School How does the observable Universe have meaning?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
High School Trying to understand the differences between distant & local galaxies
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Popular physics - The Nebra disk
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K