The first findings from the James Webb space telescope hinted at galaxies so early and massive that they are somewhat inconsistent with our understanding of the formation of structure in the universe. A new study tries to deal with these contradictions
The first findings from the James Webb space telescope hinted at galaxies so early and massive that they are somewhat inconsistent with our understanding of the formation of structure in the universe. Various explanations have been proposed that might alleviate this tension. But now new research from the Cosmic Dawn Center suggests a previously unexplored or unaccounted-for factor that appears to be at work at such early times, suggesting that galaxies may be even more massive.
If you've been following the first images from the James Webb Space Telescope, you've probably heard about the most important problem with observations of the earliest galaxies: they're too big.
Starting a few days after the publication of the first images, and again and again during the following months, new reports of more and more distant galaxies appeared. Disturbingly, some of the galaxies appeared "too massive".
According to the currently accepted concordance model of the structure of the universe and its development, the so-called ΛCDM model, there just wasn't time to create so many stars.
Although ΛCDM is not an irrefutable holy grail, there are Many reasons to wait before claiming a paradigm shift. Their stellar masses can be overestimated. Or we just got lucky and somehow discovered the most massive of the galaxies at that time.
A closer look
But now Clara Gimenez Arteaga, PhD student at the COSMIC DAWNN Center suggests an effect that can further increase the incongruity with the model or the paradigm.
In fact, the stellar mass of a galaxy is estimated by measuring the amount of light emitted by the galaxy, and calculating the number of stars needed to emit this amount. The usual approach is to weight or calculate the total galaxy mass.
However, looking closely at an observation of five galaxies, taken using 'James Webb', Gimenez Arteaga found that if the galaxy is treated not as one large cluster of stars, but as an entity made up of several clusters, a different picture is obtained.
"We used the standard formula to calculate stellar masses from the images that 'James Webb' took, but on a pixel-by-pixel basis instead of looking at the entire galaxy," explains Gimenez Arteaga.
"In principle, one would expect the results to be the same: summing the light from all pixels and finding the total stellar mass, versus calculating the mass of each pixel and adding all the individual stellar masses. But they don't."
In fact, the inferred stellar masses have now turned out to be up to ten times larger than expected.
The figure below shows the five galaxies with their stellar masses determined by the two computational approaches. If the two different approaches agreed with each other, all galaxies would lie along the sloped line but all are above this line.
So why are the stellar masses interpreted as much larger?
Gimenez Arteaga explains: "Stellar populations are a mixture of small and faint stars on the one hand, and bright and massive stars on the other. If we only look at the combined light, due to the light intensity of the bright massive stars, they do not allow to see the smaller and fainter stars in their true light intensity. Our analysis shows that bright star-forming clumps may dominate the total light, but the bulk of the mass is in smaller stars."
Stellar mass is one of the main properties used to characterize a galaxy, and Gimenez-Artega's result highlights the importance of being able to resolve the question of true galaxy mass.
But for the most distant bodies and whose light is weak, this is not always possible. This factor has been studied in the past, but only at much later times in the history of the universe.
The next step is therefore to look for light signatures that do not require the high resolution, and which correspond to the "true" stellar mass.
"Other studies in much later periods also found this gap. If we can determine how widespread and severe the effect was at earlier times, and quantify it, we will be closer to calculating massive stellar masses in distant galaxies, which is one of the main current challenges of the study of galaxies in the early universe", concludes Clara Giménez Arteaga.
The study was recently published in print The Astrophysical Journal.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
19 תגובות
From my age group (66), I quite like to come across an inexhaustible attempt to hold on to the big bang theory
And in every problem created by a variety of people who have already fixed themselves in the idea that the theory is real and correct even though it is full of more holes than its yellow height.
So every time solutions are added to it
Suddenly we find out that the laws of physics we know today did not exist at the singular point and then we find out that the universe is expanding in a manner of acceleration and not lust, so suddenly we have to state that according to this there is dark energy and dark matter
Which is 95 percent fast
Which makes us place a hazard on the bang of only 5 percent accuracy
Not to mention that the universe revealed to us is only about 30 percent
So that drops from five percent accuracy back to one point and six of accuracy.
and now this
Really funny part
Not to mention that all the data he has is based on 250 years at best
So we have no data as to what the universe was like five hundred years ago or a thousand years ago and certainly two and five thousand years ago
And sure, sure, sure, certainly not on a billion years ago
Because we can't tell if the universe beats like a human heart or the medium circular cycle that every five hundred years it expands and contracts.
Such an absence is simply ignored even though most if not all of nature works in cyclical operations.
and another detail
All the data in his possession exist according to waves that are in the spectrum of the light coming from the stars.
And regarding light, changes were discovered over time, such as an old assumption that light moves in a material called ether, which was invalidated over time
The assumption that light travels in a straight line is important, it turned out that light bends
Light waves and the frequency of the waves that can change pressure impedance along the journey of the light
For example, is the light that reaches us not affected by 95 percent of dark matter and dark energy that we know nothing about.
Ok after all this I will give you scientists a figure that you will surely come to this conclusion in the end
not complicated
A figure made up of seven words
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
The big bang theory doesn't make sense.
If there was a big bang all the matter in the universe should have been arranged in the shape of a hollow sphere because all the matter was thrown out in one explosion at the time of the big bang.
In reality all matter is arranged equally from all directions apparently shows that there is a place that can be called the center of the universe,
That there is a so-called white hole that is constantly spewing out new material from which new galaxies are constantly being formed.
How do they get away? Maybe the white hole has a repulsive force and not a gravitational force that pushes everything,
instead of the dark energy theory
So again we discover another layer in the fragility of the big bang hypothesis.
There is a problem in relating to the light that reaches us from afar
Of course, all this with the assumption that the same light arriving is the same light coming from the source
Without considering that there is 95% of energy and dark matter
which certainly affects the light that reaches us, whether by the curvature of the light cones or by the light waves themselves
the greater the distance
Thus the chance of the coming data dwarfs and decreases more
Therefore, the treatment should be accordingly
And who exactly are these astronomers who are surprised
do they have names Experts checked, scientists discovered, astronomers were surprised....every article without any real basis starts like this, I apologize, it is impossible to tell if it is real or the writer bored you last night
The only thing that has gone into space is your imagination.
There is a firmament that is a closed system, also how does the telescope move there without a motor? How does it move around there exactly? How do you adjust it? What kind of remote control transmissions are used to direct it, unfortunately something else is missing
Not inclined to agree with Dr. Arteaga's theory. Although it is true that the ancient galaxies were completely different from the Milky Way galaxy and similar in that they produce stars at a dizzying rate (10 times the production rate of the Milky Way or the Magellanic Cloud) therefore the amount of light emitted in relation to the mass may be misleading (written on the website on 14/4/23: https://www.hayadan.org.il/גלקסיה-קומפקטית-עתיקה-בעלת-קצב-היווצר)
The big map theory holds that the bang created 75% hydrogen, 25% helium and sometimes a little bit of lithium. After 300 thousand years the first atoms were formed and 500 million years after that the first stars were formed, and now it turns out that the theory is incorrect because Webb was able to locate not only wonderfully organized galaxies 500 million years after the bang, but also that the rate of star formation indicates that there is a missing component /s that cause the acceleration of star formation. Here is the mystery and it can only be discovered through "observation" and not theory.
There is a telescope that is constantly pointing at the Earth, the Trump administration has ordered to cut contact with it.
The new "Webb" telescope produces high quality images according to the scientists and NASA.
Why not direct him to provide pictures of the Earth - that is, even one real picture, without photoshop/CGI.
Because, as Nasa has already admitted, all the pictures of Kadhwa are CGI or Photoshop (even the famous ones from decades ago).
Because as a logical person who investigates the subject (and also loves the truth) it seems strange to me that for some reason the telescope takes pictures at a distance of thousands/billions of light years, and NASA cannot give us one, real, photo of the Earth from it.
Why is this not done...everyone will conclude for himself.
I however take it to mean that NASA knows exactly why they are not providing the image.
Everything is Photoshop, there is no space, there are no galaxies, there is a sky above us that cannot be crossed,
When they launched the jw telescope into space they knew it would return with new discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. Now when it happens it's hard for us to deal with it.
When will they invent the telescope that will reveal all these lies, about imaginary space, a waste of public money
If the galaxies are larger and denser, this confirms the theory that intelligence is present in the universe at a much earlier time.
Here is a different way to find out what physical reality is.
https://www.academia.edu/96020532/The_interaction_based_theory_IbT_of_everything
Abstract
Since the dawn of history, humans have tried to explain phenomena of reality.
There are two main approaches:
1. The older and more common approach is to rely on higher forces - God created the world, and a divine act explains every phenomenon we do not understand. Most people, including scientists and philosophers, believe in a higher power. Even Newton, one of the most prominent scientists, was a man of faith and explained that he was only discovering the laws of God's work.
2. The second approach is the scientific approach, which also has severe limitations (see - Fundamental theories may be flawed).
Here are some reasons why these two philosophies are not valid.
Many phenomena that were explained as God's actions are found to have scientific explanations. For example, no one today thinks that lightning and thunder result from Zeus' anger.
Those who follow the development of religions can find evidence that people invented religion because of their mental needs. The religions, especially the associated worship involved, provide stability, order, and a much-needed quiet mind in an uncertain environment. Religions were adopted and strengthened by the rulers, who found they were an excellent way to rule over the people.
Scientists and philosophers cannot find a single theory that explains all the phenomena. With the improvement of measuring devices and measuring methods, many phenomena are found to contradict physical theories. The scientists overcame these contradictions between the theory and the measured phenomena by inventing additional theories to explain these differences, only to find that even the corrections in the theories do not answer all the phenomena.
One can find that scientists are locked in prejudices that prevent them from deviating from the determinations of previous scientists. See, for example, the assumption that a universe entity was born in the big bang and swelled to its current size. This assumption has its roots in the Greek philosophers who looked up to the sky and imagined seeing a dome of a universe studded with stars - hence the wrong idea of the existence of a universe entity.
Many philosophers of science claim that we must abandon the existing physical theories and find a new way to explain reality. The philosophers of science, Thomas Kuhn and Gian Giudice, observed that it is time to change the physical theories: "We are confronted with the need to reconsider the guiding principles that have been used for decades to address the most fundamental questions about the physical world (see – A Deepening Crisis Forces Physicists to Rethink Structure of Nature's Laws.)
The theory presented in this article is based on the ability (which will be presented later) to show a gradual development starting from the first steps that create the cosmos, continuing with molecules of matter under the conditions of the ancient earth until the development of all the wonderful things that exist in nature with an emphasis on explaining human existence. Human existence includes an explanation of human behavior both as an individual and as part of society. Human behavior includes an explanation of the nature of consciousness and the reasons for our deep conviction in mental existence.
I do not claim that this is the correct way or the only way in which it is possible to explain the creation of life from matter, but it is enough to show that there is one explanation to establish the thesis.
It is challenging to accept an approach different from what we are used to thinking and what our intuition convinces us. Still, even if we are convinced that this way is wrong and unacceptable, examining things from a different point of view sometimes generates new ideas that will advance solutions.
A new point of view is always objectionable. Bruno was burned, and Copernicus did not dare to publish his theory which contradicted the accepted theories of Ptolemy.
I know it isn't easy to accept an approach different from what we are used to thinking from what our intuition convinces us. Still, even if we are convinced that this way is wrong and unacceptable, examining things from a different point of view is sometimes helpful. Even if we are convinced this is a mistake, this point of view sometimes generates new ideas that will advance the existing theories.
A new point of view is always objectionable. Bruno was burned, and Copernicus did not dare to publish his theory which contradicted the accepted theories of Ptolemy.
What I propose here is close to a heresy no less than the heresy of Copernicus in the earth's centrality. But please hear me out.
The scientists were sure and still sure that they had invented the creator... who created them. The builders of the Tower of Babel were also sure that they would meet the Creator, fight him and win... so they thought. Many more surprises were in store for the scientists until they realized that what they discovered was nothing compared to the infinity created by the Creator. A little modesty and humility wouldn't hurt this arrogance.
How were galaxies like this 13 billion years ago? So close to the big bang (so to speak). When will the brave scientist stand up and say that the big bang theory doesn't make sense.
fayknews
The earth is flat.
The sun revolves around the earth.
Everything is NASA Photoshop.
And only Bibi!!!!
The amount of matter in the universe does not change and there is enough room for all the matter in the universe
All matter in the universe rotates around circular axes
And so the movement of the universe is not expansion but circular movement of all matter in orbits of millions of light years and that's how it works since the big bang
In my opinion, there is no other option and we would have long seen the collapse of all the material in the construction or at least part of it
I'm not a scientist but that's my opinion
That's my opinion
The astronomers are surprised, the physicists are surprised, the mathematicians are surprised, and the geometricians are also surprised.
The entire theoretical science is surprised, because its fossilized theory has not been renewed.
The major innovations appear in the book "Esbar's Magical Journey on the Wings of Natural Knowledge"
As expected….the theoretical science that has frozen on its guard, opposes it.
https://nivbook.co.il/product/%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%A2-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%A2%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%A8-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%98%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%AA/
Einstein relativity is a simplification of Time-Asymmetric Relativity. Einstein relativity is fundamentally misleading when applied to large-scale cosmology. Periodic Physics yields an essentially and entirely different cosmological model, and predictions by which the theory can be disproved. http://Www.periodicphysics.com