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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cerenkov
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    jwst Mean
Click For Summary
Recent observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) have identified six massive galaxies existing just 500-700 million years after the Big Bang, challenging the LambdaCDM model of cosmology. This model predicted that such large galaxies should not form until much later, around 770 million years post-Big Bang. The findings suggest that either the model's calculations or its underlying assumptions may be incorrect, as they conflict with established predictions. The paper published in Nature highlights the "impossible early galaxy problem," indicating that the formation of these galaxies occurs far earlier than previously thought. This discrepancy raises significant questions about our understanding of galaxy formation and the evolution of the universe.
  • #31
And reopened after removing an off-topic digression
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes 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.
 
  • #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.)
 
  • Haha
Likes 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.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes 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.
 
  • Like
Likes 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

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K