Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Astronomy and Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
'Universe Breaking' results from JWST -- What does this mean?
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="Vanadium 50, post: 6861439, member: 110252"] I don't think I am entirely in agreement on much of what has been written. Suppose we take the result at face value - that there are too many old, large galaxies. It's not obvious to me that this is anything but a modeling problem. I like modeling problems, and I've spent my career working on several, but the "these galaxies are <cue spooky music> [I]impossible[/I]" overstates the case. Next, these galaxies are [I]small[/I] by modern standards. The largest is about LMC-sized, and the others are closer to SMC-sized. Next, and I have said this before, the redshifts are not measured. They are inferred from photometry. Is the photometric code they use good tp this redshift? The code authors claim it is goof to Z=4, and these are quite a bit farther out. Doesn't make the result wrong, but it should slow down the drawing of extraordinary conclusions. Related to this, these galaxies aren't just anomalously large. They are anomalously blue. Both anomalies go away if they are closer and younger than the photometry code returns. Finally, this paper has been in review for months and months. What could the hold-up be? Not the observation - the galaxies are what they are. So it must have been the interpretation (and this is often the case). I have no reason to suspect that the referees didn't notice the same things I noticed, and suspect that the author's winning argument was, as again it often is, "we said what we did, and if people don''t like it, they can write their own papers criticizing it" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Astronomy and Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
'Universe Breaking' results from JWST -- What does this mean?
Back
Top