JWST uncovers ancient galaxy, challenging cosmic theories and baffling scientists

zohaibahd

Posts: 314   +5
Staff
A real head-scratcher: The James Webb Space Telescope detected the earliest galaxy ever observed in the universe, but it presents researchers with a mystery. Scientists can't figure out how it managed to churn out stars merely a few hundred million years after the Big Bang because it doesn't conform to current galaxy formation models.

Dubbed JADES-GS-z14-0, the galaxy was first spotted by Webb's Near InfraRed Spectrograph (NIRSpec) earlier this year. It formed around 300 million years after the Big Bang, estimated to be 13.8 billion years ago.

What makes this detection wild is that the galaxy contains a gigantic halo of freshly minted stars surrounding its core that have been furiously bursting into being for at least 90 million years before the point of observation. Somehow, just a couple hundred million years after the universe inflated into existence, this thing was already cranking out stars. That's pretty bizarre.

Current theories suggest galaxies in the early cosmos were supposed to start small and grow gradually over billions of years through galactic mergers and gas and dark matter accretion. However, JADES-GS-z14-0 tosses these theories into the bin. Scientists say it's way too massive and active for its age.

"The discovery by JWST of an abundance of luminous galaxies in the very early Universe suggests that galaxies developed rapidly, in apparent tension with many standard models," the researchers wrote in a study published July 29 in Nature. "Galaxy formation models will need to address the existence of such large and luminous galaxies so early in cosmic history."

Additionally, the galaxy contains astounding amounts of dust and heavy elements like oxygen, making it even more strange. All that enriched material implies JADES-GS-z14-0 had already vigorously forged generations of stars long before its perceived 290-million-year age.

It's not the first time the JWST has uncovered shockingly mature galaxies from the Cosmic Dawn. Earlier findings in 2023 revealed half a dozen stupendously massive galaxies formed 500 to 700 million years after the Big Bang, defying 99 percent of theoretical predictions. Between those and this new ultra-ancient galaxy, it's becoming clear our picture of the early universe contains some serious blind spots.

As for what kicks off these 'premature' galactic growth spurts, the researchers don't have a definitive answer. They're tossing around potential explanations like an earlier birth of supermassive black holes, feedback effects from frequent supernovae, or possibly even the influence of dark energy. They just don't know.

That said, it's growing more apparent that the universe is playing by a set of rules we have yet to grasp fully. However, with observatories like the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey on the case, perhaps these mysteries won't remain unsolved for much longer.

Image credit: NOIRLab

Permalink to story:

 
The universe has no age, it keeps re-inventing itself again and again, because there is no Big Bang as creationists want us to believe, but a cyclical string of agglomerations and expansions in various forms. In time, with better technologies there will be no denial of the fact that we will see older galaxies than 13.8 billion years.
 
The universe has no age, it keeps re-inventing itself again and again, because there is no Big Bang as creationists want us to believe, but a cyclical string of agglomerations and expansions in various forms. In time, with better technologies there will be no denial of the fact that we will see older galaxies than 13.8 billion years.

Agree! The universe is eternal.
 
Are scientists wrong...again?
What a shock!
That is how science (and to a degree engineering) works. Question, hypothesis, experiment, results. Do the results match the hypothesis? No, go back and start again. Yes, then expand on the hypothesis. Meanwhile other scientists are pulling your work apart checking the results. Really wtf are you doing on a tech website, I am surprised you have internet and a computer living in a cave.

I see so many anti science comments in these forums it just blows my mind.
 
The universe has no age, it keeps re-inventing itself again and again, because there is no Big Bang as creationists want us to believe, but a cyclical string of agglomerations and expansions in various forms. In time, with better technologies there will be no denial of the fact that we will see older galaxies than 13.8 billion years.
Such audacious and bold statements of faith
 
Such audacious and bold statements of faith
The universe has no age, it keeps re-inventing itself again and again, because there is no Big Bang as creationists want us to believe, but a cyclical string of agglomerations and expansions in various forms. In time, with better technologies there will be no denial of the fact that we will see older galaxies than 13.8 billion years.
Creationists don't believe in the Big Bang. The Big Bang requires the pre-existence of matter/energy. Biblical Creationism holds to an ex nihilo origin of the universe, I.e., "out of nothing". Scripture says God spoke it into existence.
 
Last edited:
Creationists don't believe in the Big Bang. The Big Bang requires the pre-existence of matter/energy. Biblical Creationism holds to an ex nihilo origin of the universe, I.e., "out of nothing". Scripture says God spoke it into existence.
I'm pointing out that the statements he's making are far from being scientific.
It's just bald assertions, and bald assertions are made from a position of faith, despite self-beliefs to the contrary.

And yes, ex nihilo. Same exact data of universe expansion, 2 totally different worldviews leading to 2 entirely different interpretations of the same exact data. And 1 interpretation "refines" or "evolves" its conclusions in almost the same way all the time, pushing the "Big Bang" origin of the universe further and further back millions of years each time. I wonder really how different that is from the "naive religious convenience" of ascribing "unsolved scientific matters" to a God who told us quite exactly how the universe was created in 6 working days.
 
Last edited:
I'm pointing out that the statements he's making are far from being scientific.
It's just bald assertions, and bald assertions are made from a position of faith, despite self-beliefs to the contrary.

And yes, ex nihilo. Same exact data of universe expansion, 2 totally different worldviews leading to 2 entirely different interpretations of the same exact data.
Yes, I understand what your were doing. Sorry, I was intending to reply to mosu's original comment, not your reply to him. You and I seem to be on the same page.
 
Yes, I understand what your were doing. Sorry, I was intending to reply to mosu's original comment, not your reply to him. You and I seem to be on the same page.
My opinions are based on a long history of assumptions about the Universe's age in the last 50 years( and yes, I am over 60 years old), all validated by the technology of the moment.It is not about faith, but observation, and if someone compiles existent data in good faith will notice what I have stated in the first comment. I believe faith serves better the human behavior, acting in favor of ethics and morality. Science is based on facts , derived from honest experiences and valid conclusions. It is easy to confuse a massive supernova explosion with a Big Bang and the resulting debris acting as expansion of the Universe.
 
Back