All "the scientist" are saying is that these data don't readily fit current models, so it's "New Model Time". Models are all we have, and models is what scientists do. No big deal.
Eventually people will learn to stop saying ''shouldn't be possible'' Nothing happens in contradiction to nature, only in contradiction to what we know of it.
Yeah, those kinds of clickbaity titles just erode trust in science Like those digital tabloids will be like “OMG! SCIENTISTS ARE SHOCKED TO DISCOVER THEY WERE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING!!” and then it turns out they just found a galaxy that’s slightly outside of what models predict for the brightness/mass ratio
that is an indication that you need to do more reading in the here and now ... basic understanding of the universe has not changed very much in thousands of years, only the details keep getting tweaked ... obviously the bible would disagree with your summation. I am not in support of the bible but I am in support of ideas that have been buried but will make a comeback when 'we the sheeple' are ready to embrace them once again
So true! I am 75, and it was scarcely 25 years before I was born that we finally fully understood that the Milky Way was not the entire universe. 3 great human inventions: the wheel, music, and the space telescopes!
After we gradually became able to see what we couldn't see with the naked eye, we are now at the point where we can see things that we actually shouldn’t be able to see at all😅
You may not see a ship's lights in the fog, but the lighthouse on the other hand... Whatever is going on in that galaxy has to be producing the needed massive amounts of radiation to produce that emission that got through that much neutral hydrogen. So the question is, to get that strong of a reading, from a galaxy that far back in time, how much must it be producing to punch that much through? And what processes could possibly do that in an early galaxy?
Hypothesis: a super massive black hole jet had beamed a reionized window for us to see (in wavelengths blocked by neutral hydrogen) further into the past.
IF that galaxy shouldn't be visible to us, they're really going to be upset when they look at a couple of the others in the same region...They're even more distant (yet still barely visible).
Your comment reads as if you already know what future pictures will show, and yet the scientists will be caught completely surprised. If only they paid attention to youtube comments
@@whataboutthis10 Its recognizing the pattern in the pictures thus far, strong lack of solid evidence reinforcing inflation/reioniz. theories (we should have already seem 'certain' things way more significant than the L-A line)... Compound this with fact they can't tell if photons velocity = c or >=c or
@@whataboutthis10 We haven't; seen a lot of singular galaxies existing alone in a hydrogen void and interacting with nothing else. Anyone that knows anything about cosmology that sees one galaxy can make a lot of inferences about what else would exist. Since we already have proof one exists, it's not a stretch to postulate it isn't the only one, that's just basic logic. If only asshats on youtube understood what a pathetic appeal to authority argument is.
@@whataboutthis10 where does it say that there are no further galaxies in the same region? i thought this was about a certain galaxy emitting a strange wavelength.
@@daleb5967 More of the same what? More of what we see in our neighbourhood? Or more of what the JWST actually sees? You _do_ know that most of the galaxies JWST sees are quite different from the ones we see in or neighbourhood - don't you...?
@@daleb5967actually just more of the same, but in much higher detail. One of the ways to make lager telescopes much cheaper is to actually use the gravity of the sun or the earth as a gravity lense!
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 seriously.......a large part of the community expected things like:. The age to double, central black holes in galaxies, swarms of black holes, swarms of black holes in sag a, mega black holes in quasars, I could go on forever here........since the 70s. It just wasn't common topics in media.
A couple comments: 1. That H-alpha line is VERY broad, suggesting relativistic speeds around a central black hole. The extreme dopplar shifting means it won't be absorbed by neutral hydrogen. 2. The accepted age of the universe seems to be more and more at odds with recent observations. Tweak the age a few hundred million years and then these aren't "impossible"
Sounds like when I was standing on Mt Batur waiting for dawn. There were a few brief moments when the multiple layers of clouds shifted different derections, and the sun shon through. Why couldn't this same, simple earthly phenomenon also work at the cosmic scale?
LOL. Right you are. They are spewing nonsense again. It all confirms the Plasma Cosmology [Electric Universe theory 🧲⚡] and hence why conventional astrophysicists are stumped...again. 🙃 The source of their puzzlement here is their misunderstanding of red shift. For a better explanation check out astronomer Halton Arp's book 'Seeing Red'. Reg. previous 'unexplained' phenomena: We in the Plasma Cosmology community understand the origin and nature of the pulses/fluctuations/variability/bubbles. The origins are in the nature of the Birkeland currents/filaments of the Cosmic Web we are just now discovering. The enormous amount of current fluctuates... hence the variability in the stars. The 'nucular' theory can't explain this and other 'mysteries'. HA! Physicists are on the wrong road. BS counter #1] There is no such thing as magnetic lines!!!!!!!!!!‼ and therefore there is nothing to get 'twisted'!!!!!!!! The 'lines' are but our visual representation of mag fields. STOP USING AS A PHYSICAL PHENOMENON.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone utter this is just showing their scientific ignorance. 🤡 🎪 BS counter #2] Mag fields can't SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!!‼ That's just more scientific ignorance. Geezus!!!!!!! 💩🚽 BS counter #3] Not that I support the existence of the phenomena which the lamestream science calls black holes, but since light and all EM radiation can't exit the event horizon there can't be any bilateral interaction between the BH and the accretion disc.‼ DONE with this theory/notion propounded by this video. But if there was a interaction that caused the BH to stop instantly it would shred/jettison the accretion disc. Has this ever been observed? NO!!!! Please put this fairy tale to rest. 🤦♂ See my expanded comments in Anton's previous videos. 🎩 ... .. .
Not just red shift models are wrong but also our biased ideas of how everything came to be. Science sifted out the bias but ego is slowing science down.
redshift, distance is just a shoddy pyramid with known wrong assumptions and calculations. Newton instead of Einstein, PI = 3 = 1. Ever since we started using this as basis instead of particle physics, the entire field of physics got stuck. Coincidence? I think not. Astrophysicists have no idea what they're doing. Even the entire concept of inflation was made with initially only 30 observations, which showed a clear dipole IN THE DIRECTION OF EARTH TRAVELING lmfao. And they still took at as meaning that there was no dipole and somehow evidence for inflation. Morons.
Anton, I just wanted to say thank you for everything you do and sharing your knowledge. We all love you bud. I drive for uber and listening to your videos is something I look forward to every single day.
We either have something wrong in our theories concerning the age and evolution of the universe, or our assumptions that universal constants are constant, or that even the laws of physics are constant, need revisiting. I'm open to either possibility.
ummm akshully all of that's been totally disproven and we need another 15 billion dollars for another attempt to find non-existent non-baryonic dark matter. I Trust the Science!!!
Did the big bang occur? If we are seeing light from billions of years ago, shouldn't that light have passed us billions of years ago? On the other hand, if the universe formed more broadly (not from a central bang, but nearly instantaneously across a larger space) then we would be in a position to receive the light from such a distance/time. Why else would the light be reaching us now?
The big bang wasn't an explosion that occurred at the center of a preexisting space, it was the expansion of space itself, occurring everywhere at once. Kinda weird.
That's my issue. Wouldn't the light from that time already be past us? My other thought is that intelligence serves the ego. Robert Anton Wilson observed that "The Thinker thinks, the Prover proves". We arrange our views to accommodate our prejudices. The human primate brain, using our five murky senses, peering through our clunky machines simply cannot clearly see the Universe and so certain primates create elaborate mathematical fantasies in their minds that conform. I would not bet two cents on our current theories.
@@rodturner4589 yeah when you really think about it, it's almost like a cosmological big bang is nonsensical drivel that gained traction because it fit the theology of mathematicians and scientists of the era.
I've worked with radio astronomers, planetary astronomers, exoplanet experts, et al for a good part of my career. One of the most fascinating specialties is determining the interstellar medium (ISM), its properties, how it affects the radiation from distant objects, and how to separate its effects from the details we want to know about those objects. Then there's the inter-galactic medium, much closer to a pure vacuum than the ISM, yet we can extract measurable properties of that. Nothing about the IGM is for sure, subject to refinement with new observations.
LOL. Right you are. They are spewing nonsense again. It all confirms the Plasma Cosmology [Electric Universe theory 🧲⚡] and hence why conventional astrophysicists are stumped...again. 🙃 The source of their puzzlement here is their misunderstanding of red shift. For a better explanation check out astronomer Halton Arp's book 'Seeing Red'. Reg. previous 'unexplained' phenomena: We in the Plasma Cosmology community understand the origin and nature of the pulses/fluctuations/variability/bubbles. The origins are in the nature of the Birkeland currents/filaments of the Cosmic Web we are just now discovering. The enormous amount of current fluctuates... hence the variability in the stars. The 'nucular' theory can't explain this and other 'mysteries'. HA! Physicists are on the wrong road. BS counter #1] There is no such thing as magnetic lines!!!!!!!!!!‼ and therefore there is nothing to get 'twisted'!!!!!!!! The 'lines' are but our visual representation of mag fields. STOP USING AS A PHYSICAL PHENOMENON.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone utter this is just showing their scientific ignorance. 🤡 🎪 BS counter #2] Mag fields can't SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!!‼ That's just more scientific ignorance. Geezus!!!!!!! 💩🚽 BS counter #3] Not that I support the existence of the phenomena which the lamestream science calls black holes, but since light and all EM radiation can't exit the event horizon there can't be any bilateral interaction between the BH and the accretion disc.‼ DONE with this theory/notion propounded by this video. But if there was a interaction that caused the BH to stop instantly it would shred/jettison the accretion disc. Has this ever been observed? NO!!!! Please put this fairy tale to rest. 🤦♂ See my expanded comments in Anton's previous videos. 🎩
"Scientists just found out that all those things that you were told off for questioning in class... are based on little more than speculation and not only was it fair for you to criticise, but you were correct about some of your speculative musings - it's just a shame that they either kicked you out, failed you, or put you off pursuing the academic route"! Yay 21st century science!
Do you know what cracks me up about you guys everyone said James Webb telescope will explore the universe yes equations you have to analyze the data are in fact logarithmic and no matter what data you put in it always points to 13.8 billion years it doesn’t matter what games are Boces it goes into that equation and that equation can offer no other result I’ll be there in the universe is 13.8 billion years it’s so preposterous and it’s so stupid it really makes me wonder about you guys
My question for Anton: surely nobody ever expected re-ionization to have occurred everywhere all at once, so, why would finding a precocious bubble be so surprising?
I bet the universe is actually infinite with no wall and there is some weird phenomenon outside the expanse of our point of the universe that cant be viewed because of the sheer distance is too great and/or the amount of particles creates a blanket that block anything visible beyond the expanse of our point of the universe. there is probably a state particles eventuality just compile enough to create a new big bang else where in a process that takes an unimaginable amount of time to go through.
Why wouldn't 'everything' offer distinguishable observables? Also it's 'just' everything there is, it's not at all like 'everything that could be'. And even less, it's only everything we can observe. So yeah, plenty of reason to expect 'particularities'
@@elijahfluw4347 I thought about it _extensively_. I read both his arguments and lots of counterarguments. I studied the science myself. I looked up the sources he mentions in his work and found out that in lots of cases, he totally misrepresent what the sources say - he pretends that the sources support him, where in reality they totally contradict his claims. His book _is_ garbage. Definitely.
Redshift of 13 ! Nearly twice the previous record holder, with a redshift of 7. 13.5billion lightyears away, but it's not there anymore. In fact, we've got no idea where these galaxies would be now. Nor do we know where our galaxy would have been back then, in relation to these observations. Time & motion can be funny, at times. Could it be possible, that we may observe the birth of our own galaxy? With the path in line, we could even be our own gravity lens. 🚀🏴☠️🎸
As the densities of baryonic matter increase time slows, essentially at 'infinite' densities it ceases. So the idea that the universe has an 'age' only works in the same way absolute zero follows from projection of the slope of the ideal gas laws, the reality is that 'ideal' gases don't exist, all the ones we know collapse to liquids/solids at temperatures below the conditions used to define the 'ideal gas laws'. From where we are now 15-billion makes sense, but if you were projected back to the very early universe your present yard-stick would not be valid or applicable. Its one of those 'infinities' that plagues us by division by zero.
@@douglaswilkinson5700 I would like to know where you get that date, because the last measurement of the age of the universe is 13.7 Billions Years with a discrepancy of + - 200 Millions years.
In conservative sense of the term 'big bang' it refers to the nearly-uniform super-hot and dense state at around 10^-dozen seconds. The age since then is a well defined concept, it's value however is a fit to the model, so there's some % uncertainty Before the described time when 'standard BigBang theory starts' the inflation is a promising theory, there's a lower bound estimated for its time span. Before 10^-afewdozen seconds theories are wilder, and it's far from clear that 'an initial singularity at t=0' was even real
humans will never observe something in the Universe that should not be happening. If anything, it is the human understanding of what they are observing which is flawed. The Universe knows much more about being the universe than any human ever will. No matter how much humans think they know, the remain blind to the vast knowledge they do not know.
Very interesting but also a little disappointing, LOL! I saw that title and initially thought maybe JWST saw a galaxy outside what we usually consider the observable universe!
I think the Big Bang Theory gives us an inspired stepping stone in our understanding. It would be interesting to hear what Einstein might say if he was around today! May he rest in peace.
@@seamusbrennan6302 well he believed in a static universe originally which i lean towards. Everything moving away from Everything may be an illusion that we dont understand like how we dont understand why or how light acts differently when being observed. It may be the universe appears different while being observed since the part that is observable is the light.
@@MrBigdaddy2ya "a static universe originally which i lean towards" That is _strongly_ contradicted by _lots_ of observations. E. g. the existence of the CMBR. Or that quasars are seen only in a certain distance range. Or the age of stars. Or the abundance of the elements. etc. "we dont understand why or how light acts differently when being observed" Err, we do understand that. Try learning some quantum mechanics from actual textbooks instead of only from the internet.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 quantum mechanics is mostly theoretical. The cmb doesn't prove anything except that the universe is oddly uniformly the same temperature. The age of the stars is theoretical at this point. How about you not pass theories off as fact. Its a disservice to understanding
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 how you can you explain the fine tuned universe. The odds of this all happening by accident is 1 in a gazillion yet you want me to choose the 1 as being the most probably path to where we are. You can't even tell me where mass came from. Was it always there if so why is a big bag needed. We see structures in the universe that defy understanding the Big Ring, the cosmic web, the 27 million light year long jets that Anton talked about a few days ago. The more we look the less we understand because we are trying to fit everything into a neat box. Truth will do what it wants and will leave the truth deniers in the dust. Seems you like the taste of dust.
Could also be interesting to look in the opposite direction and see if we find something similar but much closer? Maybe seeing the wrapped light of the universe?
It's no coincidence Antons videos are released around the time of day my edibles are seriously kicking in and I can truly appreciate the universe. Thanks wonderful dude. PS. let me know if you want a dozen of my cosmic cookies
EUREKA EUREKA.. Now I know. That galaxias looks older than they could be becsuse we are see the light Reflexion of a younger galaxy that bounced back from the edge of the universe and only them arrived to us.
@@carmenmccauley585 That is based on the accelerating expansion of the universe due to dark energy pushing galaxies apart. So there is no point of return.
Sounds like a bubble of stuff/matter/gas inside or on the other side of a void just the right (humongous) size for the light to never hit more gas on the border of the void before reionization (and transparency) happened elsewhere to diffuse it into the Shadow Realm, I mean, into essentially background noise on the data. In other words, the researchers could check that region in the CMB and look for voids or subdensity in that area, if that's there, at least how the light got to JWT's sensor so pristine gets, at least, partially explained. As for why or how it reionized (seemingly) way earlier than what we see elsewhere, well, that's beyond what I study, so, yeah, my comment here is pure speculation on a topic I'm not versed enough to speculate properly: maybe, small islands of matter inside voids could have slightly different rates of evolution? Again, that's really beyond my pay grade, but, well, makes sense in my head that with less stuff nearby slowing down the pull of matter into that galaxy, it might end up developing just a tiny bit faster. (If anyone reading this happens to write any paper on it, just give a shoutout to an anonymous dude having a brain fart online in there somewhere. :D)
So the speed of light is not fixed is a big answer or the speed depends on the instrument or simulation makes everything better and 500 more questions. I love science and I hate dying just for that
@@drewharrison6433Anton is the source generally of this type of information. That is, he explains papers created by experts. I am 70. I too am so happy to learn so much before I too go kaput. So much more yet will be discovered. Such an exciting time to be alive. At my age, I look around and find a lot of people who take a lot for granted.
There should be many black holes and neutron stars even then. And their strong fields can greatly accelerate star formation from hydrogen. It only needs gas and a dark star and does NOT have to evolve by slow gravitation from a gas, then eventually ignite. And if black holes also can go nova as I suspect, they can expel high energy density core material similar to neutron stars and most likely quark star (I prefer gluon) matter. I usually give a small $Thanks. But mostly that never registers in your huge inflow of praise and support. I write and it makes not difference at all. But I am fairly certain I am more likely to be right than wrong. Look for more stars that accrete from molecular clouds onto dark cores. And look for more evidence of recycles materials from black hole nova and gluon condensation nova in hot dense galaxies and clusters where the star forming regions are filled with remnant dark stars of various sorts. Even a few billion while dwarfs and make a small big bang in the right circumstances. Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
I think we ALL just need go come to terms that we will NEVER know just how old the universe is. We may find out after death, we may not. It could he endless and eternal. It could be gone tomorrow. Science is fun. I love it. We all just need to find our own peace and live in the moment. This channel has brought me such joy and I appreciate that. Anton through his ups and downs still makes his videos and keeps us updated on his life. He is an all star.
If you are a February 29th Birthday. This Galaxy is for you! The hidden secrets of this day is like the twilight zone. Anyway you might think I’m crazy but hey we all have viewpoints.
Lyman alpha light is emitted when the electron in a hydrogen atom falls from the next to lowest energy level to the lowest. Lyman break light means that a hydrogen ion captures an electron that falls immediately to the lowest level. Even at the temperatures at the surfaces of stars, most hydrogen atoms are at the lowest level. So bright Lyman emissions mean there’s a whole lot of atomic hydrogen exposed to highly energetic processes. Got it. (Even more so for Balmer hydrogen lines in visible light, which are absorbed when the electrons are bumped up from the second level. For there to be enough hydrogen at the second level to be detectable at stellar temperatures, almost the whole star must be made of hydrogen; that’s what Cecilia Payne figured out.)
Almost certainly a lensing effect reflection, being misinterpreted. I‘d rather they focused their equipment at closer things. Things they can actually see. Without trying to create a universe from very few Picsels from 14billion ly‘s away.
