Webb telescope spots super old, massive galaxies that shouldn’t exist

[We Never Know]

We don't have a clue what all its out three IMO

Webb telescope spots super old, massive galaxies that shouldn’t exist

"In a new study, an international team of astrophysicists has discovered several mysterious objects hiding in images from the James Webb Space Telescope: six potential galaxies that emerged so early in the universe’s history and are so massive they should not be possible under current cosmological theory.

Each of the candidate galaxies may have existed at the dawn of the universe roughly 500 to 700 million years after the Big Bang, or more than 13 billion years ago. They’re also gigantic, containing almost as many stars as the modern-day Milky Way Galaxy.

“It’s bananas,” said Erica Nelson, co-author of the new research and assistant professor of astrophysics at CU Boulder. “You just don’t expect the early universe to be able to organize itself that quickly. These galaxies should not have had time to form.”

Nelson and her colleagues, including first author Ivo Labbé of the Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, published their results Feb. 22 in the journal Nature.

The latest finds aren’t the earliest galaxies observed by James Webb, which launched in December 2021 and is the most powerful telescope ever sent into space. Last year, another team of scientists spotted several galaxies that likely coalesced from gas around 350 million years after the Big Bang. Those objects, however, were downright shrimpy compared to the new galaxies, containing many times less mass from stars.

The researchers still need more data to confirm that these galaxies are as large, and date as far back in time, as they appear. Their preliminary observations, however, offer a tantalizing taste of how James Webb could rewrite astronomy textbooks.

“Another possibility is that these things are a different kind of weird object, such as faint quasars, which would be just as interesting,” she said."

https://www.colorado.edu/today/2023...ots-super-old-massive-galaxies-shouldnt-exist

 

[sun rise]

“Another possibility is that these things are a different kind of weird object, such as faint quasars, which would be just as interesting,”

Sigh. Too bad they did not give this possibility more attention rather than present an unbalanced picture.

 

[Altfish]

It is always exciting when new things are discovered, especially when we are not sure what they are.

 

[wellwisher]

A consensus of science did not expect to see these large galaxies so early in the universe. A consensus of science can be proven wrong. Consensus is a word connected to politics; opinion, and not to hard science; proof. It did not take much proof to overcome a consensus of science opinion. This was not just any consensus, like man made climate change, but one connected to the brain's of science; physics and math.

These observed galaxies were theorized several decades ago, but the consensus didn't to take it seriously since it upset the status quo and had no direct proof; no need to act. Many years ago, in various science forums, I used to argue that the current models of early cosmology, had a second law or entropy problem. If we go from the BB singularity, to a very large continuum/diversity of elementary particles with random collisions, we go almost immediately to extreme complexity.

This scenario means a large instantaneous increase in entropy. This will be extremely endothermic and will lower the available free energy of the early BB. The universe would go from extremely hot to cooler as fast as it diversifies. Conceivably so much free energy would be used at the very beginning; for diversity, leaving less energy for the expansion.

What I proposed was to begin the universe with a scenario with much less initial free energy loss. We can use the same initial free energy budget, they use, but simply use it in another way, so we can save more free energy for the future; expansion.

My favorite scenario, which could explain early galaxy formation as well as the observed superstructure of the universe; universe is not uniform, was to have the BB singularity split into two, like a mother cell into two daughter cells. This will increase entropy, but since it more like a black hole splitting, nothing really changes except one thing into two smaller things. This is not as complex.

This split scenario does not need as much free energy, compare to a complete atomization into umpteen particles. This early split could also have happened sooner, since it does not need anywhere near as much free energy. If the pre-universe was being cheap with energy, we could still get the singularity to split; binary, and then wait for more free energy to split again. Full atomization would still be waiting.

In this scenario, the two daughter cell singularities, then continue to split into smaller and smaller daughter cells. Since each smaller and smaller daughter cell is loosely similar to black holes, the universal space-time remains very compact.

Based on our observed modern universe, these would continue to divide until they all reach a critical stage. My guess is the splitting will stop, when they are of a size; capacity, that is enough for a galaxy to appear, then a particle diversity stage begins; mini BB phase with billions of cells, which then releases matter.

This scenario allows almost any galaxy to have a central black hole from the beginning. It also allow galaxies to form quicker due to the large local central gravity. The mini BB phase change will also give off lots of energy, along with the matter, with very powerful energy wavefronts, coming from all directions; compression and eddies, causing the universe to expand relative to the galaxies.

The old galaxies that were observed, recently, would have been more in the center of the daughter cell matrix, and they would see the most 3-D energy compression waves, allowing these galaxies to form very fast. Outer daughter cells would see less than 3-D wave compression and have more diversity of form.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A consensus of science did not expect to see these large galaxies so early in the universe. A consensus of science can be proven wrong. Consensus is a word connected to politics; opinion, and not to hard science; proof. It did not take much proof to overcome a consensus of science opinion. This was not just any consensus, like man made climate change, but one connected to the brain's of science; physics and math.

A scientific consensus among peers is something that has been rigorously studied and to our best current understanding appears to be true. We don't know much about universe and the James Webb Telescope is going to keep letting us learn knew things as it outperforms previous satellites.
And Global Warming just as well is attached to science, math, meteorology, chemistry, physics, geology, and other branches of science.

 

[Heyo]

A consensus of science did not expect to see these large galaxies so early in the universe. A consensus of science can be proven wrong. Consensus is a word connected to politics; opinion, and not to hard science; proof. It did not take much proof to overcome a consensus of science opinion. This was not just any consensus, like man made climate change, but one connected to the brain's of science; physics and math.

These observed galaxies were theorized several decades ago, but the consensus didn't to take it seriously since it upset the status quo and had no direct proof; no need to act. Many years ago, in various science forums, I used to argue that the current models of early cosmology, had a second law or entropy problem. If we go from the BB singularity, to a very large continuum/diversity of elementary particles with random collisions, we go almost immediately to extreme complexity.

This scenario means a large instantaneous increase in entropy. This will be extremely endothermic and will lower the available free energy of the early BB. The universe would go from extremely hot to cooler as fast as it diversifies. Conceivably so much free energy would be used at the very beginning; for diversity, leaving less energy for the expansion.

What I proposed was to begin the universe with a scenario with much less initial free energy loss. We can use the same initial free energy budget, they use, but simply use it in another way, so we can save more free energy for the future; expansion.

My favorite scenario, which could explain early galaxy formation as well as the observed superstructure of the universe; universe is not uniform, was to have the BB singularity split into two, like a mother cell into two daughter cells. This will increase entropy, but since it more like a black hole splitting, nothing really changes except one thing into two smaller things. This is not as complex.

This split scenario does not need as much free energy, compare to a complete atomization into umpteen particles. This early split could also have happened sooner, since it does not need anywhere near as much free energy. If the pre-universe was being cheap with energy, we could still get the singularity to split; binary, and then wait for more free energy to split again. Full atomization would still be waiting.

In this scenario, the two daughter cell singularities, then continue to split into smaller and smaller daughter cells. Since each smaller and smaller daughter cell is loosely similar to black holes, the universal space-time remains very compact.

Based on our observed modern universe, these would continue to divide until they all reach a critical stage. My guess is the splitting will stop, when they are of a size; capacity, that is enough for a galaxy to appear, then a particle diversity stage begins; mini BB phase with billions of cells, which then releases matter.

This scenario allows almost any galaxy to have a central black hole from the beginning. It also allow galaxies to form quicker due to the large local central gravity. The mini BB phase change will also give off lots of energy, along with the matter, with very powerful energy wavefronts, coming from all directions; compression and eddies, causing the universe to expand relative to the galaxies.

The old galaxies that were observed, recently, would have been more in the center of the daughter cell matrix, and they would see the most 3-D energy compression waves, allowing these galaxies to form very fast. Outer daughter cells would see less than 3-D wave compression and have more diversity of form.

In which journal did you publish your hypothesis?