You must log in or register to comment.

Toadfinger t1_ixjemoy wrote

> To confirm the distance, each galaxy must be followed up with the more time-consuming spectroscopy, where the exact wavelength of each photon is measured.

To confirm what distance? The article doesn't say how many light years away.


runningray t1_ixjs86t wrote

13.5 billion light years away. Something like 98% of the age of the universe. Like 300 million years after the universe became a thing. These galaxies are forming a bit sooner than what the current understanding allows and they are a bit more complex than what was assumed. So there is some 'splainin to do.


Morasain t1_ixlh908 wrote

How do we know how complex they are? Even on the JWST these galaxies are tiny


lksdjsdk t1_ixmsvqa wrote

My guess is from spectral analysis. Even from a tiny dot at huge redshift, they'd be able to tell if there is more than just hydrogen and helium.


wupdup t1_ixkdhui wrote

It's clear there won't be any 'splainin. The understanding will simply change, with no thought to where a mistake in theory might've been made. My downvotes will confirm.


SassalaBeav t1_ixm3mmf wrote

"Everyone disagrees with me, proving that I'm right" bizzare logic there ngl


skasticks t1_ixkx8y9 wrote

Isn't this just science?


wupdup t1_ixkylsh wrote

Yes, by current standards. With the assumption that early galaxies form way faster than previously thought possible, there will be 5 huge unproven assumptions to make the current model fit observations.


Merpninja t1_ixjshkp wrote

The distance is given in the name. Z-12 means a redshift of 12, but it is a VERY rough approximation that needs to be verified or corrected based on thorough spectroscopy. z=12 is roughly 13.5 billion light years old, which based on the expansion of the universe, would mean the galaxy is actually several times more distant.


Musicfan637 t1_ixkebkh wrote

What happens when we find a galaxy older than our current understanding? I’m betting on it.


Bensemus t1_ixkjx53 wrote

The CMB is the oldest light in the universe. It’s too red shifted for Webb to see. Webb can’t find galaxies older than the CMB.


Musicfan637 t1_ixkkp8p wrote

Aren’t these new oldest galaxies too advanced to be formed 300 mya?


Bensemus t1_ixp5fol wrote

No as they did form. We still don’t know a lot about galaxy formation. Now that we can see very young galaxies we can refine our models to better explain how galaxies form and evolve.


Zenguro t1_ixkzpln wrote

My thinkin as well, there is a huge piece of the puzzle we don't see yet.

I got the strange feeling something similar like the quantum/relativity theory will be found that will explain better the expansion of the universe (incl. dark matter), what we call "the big bang", and the findings of Webb.


Klondike2022 t1_ixl3py6 wrote

Crazy to think just the Milky Way, if you flew a spaceship across it for the entirety of mankind, you’d be about half way there. This farthest galaxy is 1-2 micrometers


JustAPerspective t1_ixjw4ie wrote

Why is progress being attributed to the tool rather than the people who used it?


xmilehighgamingx t1_ixkkgxo wrote

If you ask me it’s a clever pr campaign, building a cult of personality around a telescope. Lol more realistically though a lot of people do a lot of stuff on the big science projects. Webb is an easier headline, kinda like Hubble rather than which ever list of university departments are cooperating for this particular project.


Fernelz t1_ixqeb74 wrote

It also makes it easier to get the next telescope paid for when you can show everything it's done and how the country thinks about it.

I do agree though that more credit should be given to the scientists themselves


JustAPerspective t1_ixr4fj6 wrote

So if they don't brag, no one will value their work?

Funny ol' world we got here.