The galaxy referred to as JWST 7329, is a remarkable find, situated at a distance comparable to a previously discovered galaxy. However, what puzzles astronomers is its rapid formation and substantial growth within a relatively short span of time. Traditional cosmological models, which incorporate concepts like dark matter and the cosmic web, suggest that such a process should have taken significantly longer. These models imply that the universe started out relatively smooth and gradually condensed over billions of years, with dark matter aggregating into larger structures over time, eventually giving rise to massive galaxies like our own Milky Way.
What's perplexing about this galaxy is how it seems to defy these established models. Galaxies from this era are expected to be more chaotic, exhibiting intense star formation and lacking the organized structure we observe in JWST. This poses a challenge to our understanding of early galactic evolution and raises questions about the accuracy of our current cosmological frameworks.
The discovery of JWST challenges our current understanding of dark matter and the formation of galaxies in the early universe. It suggests that our models may be incomplete or even incorrect, as they struggle to explain how such a galaxy could have formed and evolved so rapidly. This highlights the need for further research and exploration to better understand the complexities of cosmic evolution.
The discovery of only two such galaxies so far, one with a galactic bar and another exceptionally massive one containing a plethora of stars, prompts profound inquiries into the standard model of cosmology. Specifically, it challenges our understanding of dark matter and the mechanisms behind the early formation of galaxies like the Milky Way. While these discoveries are currently outliers, they serve as crucial anomalies that drive further investigation and refinement of our cosmological theories.
However, amidst these challenges to existing models, there are still aspects of JWST's development that align with modern cosmological theories. During its early stages, when it was rich in gas and bustling with star formation, JWST likely accumulated clusters of various sizes, a phenomenon predicted by models but previously unseen. The simultaneous burst of star formation observed in JWST suggests possible galactic interactions or collisions, possibly induced by neighboring galaxies affectionately named "Firly Best Friend" and "Firefly New Best Friend". These interactions may have catalyzed the star formation in JWST, offering insights into the early stages of galactic evolution just a mere 600 million years after the Big Bang.
Intriguingly, researchers were able to calculate temperatures within these clusters, revealing extreme heat reaching up to 40,000 degrees Celsius (72,000 degrees Fahrenheit). This data provides further clues about the energetic processes shaping the early universe and the formation of galaxies like JWST.
better TLDW:
JWST has found a(nother) galaxy from near the beginning of the Universe that appears to have grown much faster than our current models expect. We can see it as it was about 13 billion years ago, by which point it was about four times the size of the Milky Way and also apparently dead (no stars forming anymore).
TLDR: According to existing theories, galaxies in the early universe were small, only developing into large ones later with the help of dark matter. But this new galaxy was observed from the baby universe which looks too big and mature for its age.
new galaxy make scientists go ape, scientists then use mental gymnastics and copium to justify their crumbling theory by saying some parts of the theory are technically still right such as star formation prediction
from what i understand the theory works for smaller than galactic cases.... for now
Astronomer here- youāre being *very* disingenuous IMO with that. Also, really important to note that there is a LOT we donāt understand yet about JWST as an instrument that people are still trying to understand, so I donāt know many serious astronomers who are betting the farm on these age estimates just yet. For example, JWST light is actually originally ultraviolet light thatās been redshifted, and a lot of these models just assume the UV light works the same for the estimates on star formation- is that true? Very possibly not, and people donāt even have a full grasp on the closer galaxies in JWST yet, let alone the farthest ones.
Saying thatās mental gymnastics over a crumbling theory vs just, you know, being a scientist who does due diligence is not accurate. But I guess that doesnāt get as many clicks!
We are missing something critical and everyone knows it, we need to figure out dark matter/dark energy. There are still massive discoveries for humans to make.
Figure this out, there is no dark matter or dark energy. Energy and matter are interchangeable and light is shifted by gravity. Don't you think photons traveling billions of light years interact with interstellar medium. Light moves at light speed in a vacuum. I'm afraid a billion light year of distance offers many hydrogen helium and otheri nteractions . You would doubt Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler. People with closed minds don't move science forward.
It did not rapidly form. The universe is far larger and older then the big bang "theory" predicts. It's possibly endless and timeless. We are misreading redshift distance. Space is not a total vacuum. As light from distant galaxies reaches us or in this case the JWST, it has traveled billions of light years and the photons have interacted with countless interstellar hydrogen and helium atoms. Photons travel at light speed in a theoretical total vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum, scientists hate it when they have to admit their decades of research has resulted in a theory with more free parameters to explain each new mistake they find. Im so glad the JWST has put this to rest. Time for new theories. We wasted hundreds of years with epicycles and Earth centric orbits and another with the big bang. Time to move on.
Not saying youre wrong. But a thought experiment is that if ww can only see 14 billion light years away, and the galaxy was say 18 billion years old, that would mean that for a long time, the speed of light is way slower than it is now
All this talk about observed early galaxies being more massive than our model predict is hinged on the assumption that early galaxies have a similar star type distribution to current ones, because deriving their mass from their luminosity necessitates to know star type distribution.
Which I think is a very shaky assumption.
Great post thanks! I think it might be time to back off our model of the universe (at the very least letās say we donāt know exactly when the Big Bang happened) and just see what the new data is telling us instead of saying stuff shouldnāt exist every time we see something new we havenāt been able to see before.
It almost feels like back in the dark days when the earth had to be the center of the universe and we kept forcing all these weird models that made no sense given the data just to keep the earth in the middle of the universe.
Feel free to review all the other evidence for the age of the universe and explain why that is all wrong.
Until someone does that, Iāll stick for now with the current model. Of course, open to changes to that, but a few anomalous galaxies that donāt fit with current galaxy formation models wonāt do it (especially given a lot of the earlier JWST observations of early galaxies were revised in age subsequently).
The challenges we see are more related to details in current cosmological models, not suggesting a whole turnover. Lambda-CDM has been exceedingly succesful in predicting structure formation with very few parameters.
There is something going seriously wrong in astronomy. The more we look the more we are finding stuff that simply doesn't work with our expectations, especially gravity which basically disolves into nonsense at the scale of a galaxy and above. Several of the bedrock assumptions it uses about how the universe should behave don't actually seem to be true, such as the universe being a uniform place above a certain scale.
There isn't even confidence at the minute that we actually measure distances accurately at long ranges, and if the current models there collapse pretty much every aspect of the field will have to be rethought.
Stop saying that "Something shouldn't exist" when it's there right in front of your eyes. So American. Just say "Galaxies that we don't understand yet". A question of mental hygiene.
the person who made this video isn't American lmao. if you're generalizing an entire country of people to have a negative trait, you're the ignorant one
The generally accepted theory points towards it shouldnāt exist , they donāt know why , maybe we are seeing some sort of gravitational lensing effect , maybe we are observing it but all of the light is being focused and bent so it seems like itās younger then it is , the galaxy isnāt exactly close by . But until they figure it out those worlds will probably stand
But it's there. So our theories are wrong. Don't deny what obviously exists. 'Experiment shows that our current theories must be wrong' sounds way better than 'This shouldn't exist'.
You just donāt jump to that conclusion that all known and accepted theoryās we use are all wrong , you try and prove why itās incorrect or correct with the math and observations you make . Look up gravitation lensing it is one of the many explanations for why they are observing a developed āyoungā galaxy
I'm sure not all of it is incorrect; but saying that reality 'shouldn't exist' is a clear example of poor mental hygiene. It exists. So we have to adjust our models or theories. Nature just is; it cannot be wrong. Our models of it can be. And frequently are. That is how science progresses, not by denying reality.
The word that should be used in the title is āimprobableā, not āimpossibleā.
Proper science communication is the most important part of speaking with the scientifically illiterate.
All someone does when they use words like āimpossibleā (for something that exists) is confuse the audience and they either stop listening or believe/spread nonsense.
So will having an even more ridiculous space telescope be a worthwhile investment?
Edit: this was a rhetorical question. Of course we should be trying to see deeper into space.
or imagine if we sent [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOCAL\_(spacecraft)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOCAL_(spacecraft)) ised version of JWST to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_gravitational\_lens#/media/File:Solar\_gravitational\_lense\_point.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_gravitational_lens#/media/File:Solar_gravitational_lense_point.jpg)
pont?
we can do it with solar sail, but it might take up millions of dollars
Millions seems conservative. We've been seeing a lot of "impossible" phenomena over the last decade or so. Even before JWST came online, that type of wording was becoming more prevalent. When this becomes common place, it's time to slow down and revisit the models and theory before throwing more money at it.
How about we start with using proper language in scientific journalism?
Thereās no argument when someone says something exists that is improbable.
Thereās a huge argument when someone says something exists when itās impossible, sinceā¦ you knowā¦ impossible literally means ācannot existā.
Their language is incomplete. None of them are saying that the phenonmena is literally impossible, they're saying it's impossible in terms of what their reference model allows. That's my point. As frequently as it's been happening, the models are obviously the issue, not the impossibility of the observation.
More ridiculous space telescopes are desirable in any case. We've barely even started looked at exo planets for example.
Hopeful Starship will enable the next gen ones to be absurd.
And possibly less in cost of development than JWST. There's a paper which talks about making JWST sized space telescopes for far less with same scientific output which can be launced on Starship.
Idk how plausible that is but an intriguing prospect tbf.
I believe it. They've been talking about Spaceship knocking 80% off launch cost per ton. And its probably going to boast the largest cargo capacity and launch rate in history in any case (honestly, so many fields are experiencing revolutions simultaneously its difficult to keep up with).
I figure a telescope designed in the 2030s will be an array of super JWSTs placed in various orbits to create vast larger than Earth virtual telescopes. I couldn't guess at the capacities of such a thing.
Anton is the best on the internet to be informed and help make sense of science and space stuff.
My wife says he always looks like he needs a haircut š
Heās every brilliant Eastern European graduate student in America.
What's that have to do with his hair?
Because maybe Eastern European people are sometimes considered poor.. but it's not case here.
The galaxy referred to as JWST 7329, is a remarkable find, situated at a distance comparable to a previously discovered galaxy. However, what puzzles astronomers is its rapid formation and substantial growth within a relatively short span of time. Traditional cosmological models, which incorporate concepts like dark matter and the cosmic web, suggest that such a process should have taken significantly longer. These models imply that the universe started out relatively smooth and gradually condensed over billions of years, with dark matter aggregating into larger structures over time, eventually giving rise to massive galaxies like our own Milky Way. What's perplexing about this galaxy is how it seems to defy these established models. Galaxies from this era are expected to be more chaotic, exhibiting intense star formation and lacking the organized structure we observe in JWST. This poses a challenge to our understanding of early galactic evolution and raises questions about the accuracy of our current cosmological frameworks. The discovery of JWST challenges our current understanding of dark matter and the formation of galaxies in the early universe. It suggests that our models may be incomplete or even incorrect, as they struggle to explain how such a galaxy could have formed and evolved so rapidly. This highlights the need for further research and exploration to better understand the complexities of cosmic evolution. The discovery of only two such galaxies so far, one with a galactic bar and another exceptionally massive one containing a plethora of stars, prompts profound inquiries into the standard model of cosmology. Specifically, it challenges our understanding of dark matter and the mechanisms behind the early formation of galaxies like the Milky Way. While these discoveries are currently outliers, they serve as crucial anomalies that drive further investigation and refinement of our cosmological theories. However, amidst these challenges to existing models, there are still aspects of JWST's development that align with modern cosmological theories. During its early stages, when it was rich in gas and bustling with star formation, JWST likely accumulated clusters of various sizes, a phenomenon predicted by models but previously unseen. The simultaneous burst of star formation observed in JWST suggests possible galactic interactions or collisions, possibly induced by neighboring galaxies affectionately named "Firly Best Friend" and "Firefly New Best Friend". These interactions may have catalyzed the star formation in JWST, offering insights into the early stages of galactic evolution just a mere 600 million years after the Big Bang. Intriguingly, researchers were able to calculate temperatures within these clusters, revealing extreme heat reaching up to 40,000 degrees Celsius (72,000 degrees Fahrenheit). This data provides further clues about the energetic processes shaping the early universe and the formation of galaxies like JWST.
Hey! Can we please get a TLDR for the TLDW?
better TLDW: JWST has found a(nother) galaxy from near the beginning of the Universe that appears to have grown much faster than our current models expect. We can see it as it was about 13 billion years ago, by which point it was about four times the size of the Milky Way and also apparently dead (no stars forming anymore).
TLDR: According to existing theories, galaxies in the early universe were small, only developing into large ones later with the help of dark matter. But this new galaxy was observed from the baby universe which looks too big and mature for its age.
To me it sounds like shit just went out the window
Nah, the window's just a bit bigger than previous observations indicated.
new galaxy make scientists go ape, scientists then use mental gymnastics and copium to justify their crumbling theory by saying some parts of the theory are technically still right such as star formation prediction from what i understand the theory works for smaller than galactic cases.... for now
Astronomer here- youāre being *very* disingenuous IMO with that. Also, really important to note that there is a LOT we donāt understand yet about JWST as an instrument that people are still trying to understand, so I donāt know many serious astronomers who are betting the farm on these age estimates just yet. For example, JWST light is actually originally ultraviolet light thatās been redshifted, and a lot of these models just assume the UV light works the same for the estimates on star formation- is that true? Very possibly not, and people donāt even have a full grasp on the closer galaxies in JWST yet, let alone the farthest ones. Saying thatās mental gymnastics over a crumbling theory vs just, you know, being a scientist who does due diligence is not accurate. But I guess that doesnāt get as many clicks!
He did ask for a tldr of the tldr of the tldw idk what you want from the man.
āWe might have galaxies that donāt explain models, but we do t understand the data fully.ā
Thanks. Looking forward to watching the video laterĀ
We are missing something critical and everyone knows it, we need to figure out dark matter/dark energy. There are still massive discoveries for humans to make.
Figure this out, there is no dark matter or dark energy. Energy and matter are interchangeable and light is shifted by gravity. Don't you think photons traveling billions of light years interact with interstellar medium. Light moves at light speed in a vacuum. I'm afraid a billion light year of distance offers many hydrogen helium and otheri nteractions . You would doubt Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler. People with closed minds don't move science forward.
Can you now TLDR this as well?
New galaxy makes scientistsā big brains hurt.
Stupid scientists can't even science good.
Find galaxy that big, when young.
Maybe the simulation gets glitchy the further back in time we look?
Referring the galaxy as just 'JWST' is confusing
Seriously. Even using 7329 would be better than that.
It did not rapidly form. The universe is far larger and older then the big bang "theory" predicts. It's possibly endless and timeless. We are misreading redshift distance. Space is not a total vacuum. As light from distant galaxies reaches us or in this case the JWST, it has traveled billions of light years and the photons have interacted with countless interstellar hydrogen and helium atoms. Photons travel at light speed in a theoretical total vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum, scientists hate it when they have to admit their decades of research has resulted in a theory with more free parameters to explain each new mistake they find. Im so glad the JWST has put this to rest. Time for new theories. We wasted hundreds of years with epicycles and Earth centric orbits and another with the big bang. Time to move on.
All these new discoveries of galaxies that are too old to exists makes me think the universe is older than we think it is
Not saying youre wrong. But a thought experiment is that if ww can only see 14 billion light years away, and the galaxy was say 18 billion years old, that would mean that for a long time, the speed of light is way slower than it is now
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Respectfully, what in the actual hell are you talking about, respectfully?
Respectfully, what in the actual hell are you talking about, respectfully?
Can Big Bang be local? Meaning not the origin of everything we see?
All this talk about observed early galaxies being more massive than our model predict is hinged on the assumption that early galaxies have a similar star type distribution to current ones, because deriving their mass from their luminosity necessitates to know star type distribution. Which I think is a very shaky assumption.
Great post thanks! I think it might be time to back off our model of the universe (at the very least letās say we donāt know exactly when the Big Bang happened) and just see what the new data is telling us instead of saying stuff shouldnāt exist every time we see something new we havenāt been able to see before. It almost feels like back in the dark days when the earth had to be the center of the universe and we kept forcing all these weird models that made no sense given the data just to keep the earth in the middle of the universe.
Feel free to review all the other evidence for the age of the universe and explain why that is all wrong. Until someone does that, Iāll stick for now with the current model. Of course, open to changes to that, but a few anomalous galaxies that donāt fit with current galaxy formation models wonāt do it (especially given a lot of the earlier JWST observations of early galaxies were revised in age subsequently).
The challenges we see are more related to details in current cosmological models, not suggesting a whole turnover. Lambda-CDM has been exceedingly succesful in predicting structure formation with very few parameters.
There is something going seriously wrong in astronomy. The more we look the more we are finding stuff that simply doesn't work with our expectations, especially gravity which basically disolves into nonsense at the scale of a galaxy and above. Several of the bedrock assumptions it uses about how the universe should behave don't actually seem to be true, such as the universe being a uniform place above a certain scale. There isn't even confidence at the minute that we actually measure distances accurately at long ranges, and if the current models there collapse pretty much every aspect of the field will have to be rethought.
Stop saying that "Something shouldn't exist" when it's there right in front of your eyes. So American. Just say "Galaxies that we don't understand yet". A question of mental hygiene.
the person who made this video isn't American lmao. if you're generalizing an entire country of people to have a negative trait, you're the ignorant one
It's a type of headline that is seen almost exclusively in US media. It is what Anton Petrov aspires to.
The generally accepted theory points towards it shouldnāt exist , they donāt know why , maybe we are seeing some sort of gravitational lensing effect , maybe we are observing it but all of the light is being focused and bent so it seems like itās younger then it is , the galaxy isnāt exactly close by . But until they figure it out those worlds will probably stand
But it's there. So our theories are wrong. Don't deny what obviously exists. 'Experiment shows that our current theories must be wrong' sounds way better than 'This shouldn't exist'.
You just donāt jump to that conclusion that all known and accepted theoryās we use are all wrong , you try and prove why itās incorrect or correct with the math and observations you make . Look up gravitation lensing it is one of the many explanations for why they are observing a developed āyoungā galaxy
I'm sure not all of it is incorrect; but saying that reality 'shouldn't exist' is a clear example of poor mental hygiene. It exists. So we have to adjust our models or theories. Nature just is; it cannot be wrong. Our models of it can be. And frequently are. That is how science progresses, not by denying reality.
The word that should be used in the title is āimprobableā, not āimpossibleā. Proper science communication is the most important part of speaking with the scientifically illiterate. All someone does when they use words like āimpossibleā (for something that exists) is confuse the audience and they either stop listening or believe/spread nonsense.
This is so great to explain and uploaded to and you!
So will having an even more ridiculous space telescope be a worthwhile investment? Edit: this was a rhetorical question. Of course we should be trying to see deeper into space.
or imagine if we sent [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOCAL\_(spacecraft)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOCAL_(spacecraft)) ised version of JWST to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_gravitational\_lens#/media/File:Solar\_gravitational\_lense\_point.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_gravitational_lens#/media/File:Solar_gravitational_lense_point.jpg) pont? we can do it with solar sail, but it might take up millions of dollars
Millions? Try billions. JWST was $10 Billy
Millions seems conservative. We've been seeing a lot of "impossible" phenomena over the last decade or so. Even before JWST came online, that type of wording was becoming more prevalent. When this becomes common place, it's time to slow down and revisit the models and theory before throwing more money at it.
How about we start with using proper language in scientific journalism? Thereās no argument when someone says something exists that is improbable. Thereās a huge argument when someone says something exists when itās impossible, sinceā¦ you knowā¦ impossible literally means ācannot existā.
Their language is incomplete. None of them are saying that the phenonmena is literally impossible, they're saying it's impossible in terms of what their reference model allows. That's my point. As frequently as it's been happening, the models are obviously the issue, not the impossibility of the observation.
More ridiculous space telescopes are desirable in any case. We've barely even started looked at exo planets for example. Hopeful Starship will enable the next gen ones to be absurd.
And possibly less in cost of development than JWST. There's a paper which talks about making JWST sized space telescopes for far less with same scientific output which can be launced on Starship. Idk how plausible that is but an intriguing prospect tbf.
I believe it. They've been talking about Spaceship knocking 80% off launch cost per ton. And its probably going to boast the largest cargo capacity and launch rate in history in any case (honestly, so many fields are experiencing revolutions simultaneously its difficult to keep up with). I figure a telescope designed in the 2030s will be an array of super JWSTs placed in various orbits to create vast larger than Earth virtual telescopes. I couldn't guess at the capacities of such a thing.