James Webb telescope images challenge theories how universe evolved...

[Jan Panteltje]

James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe evolved
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 2:57:02 PM UTC+10, Jan Panteltje wrote:

James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe evolved
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

The twit doesn\'t seem to have noticed that the early universe wasn\'t metal rich. Stars seem to have been bigger back then - with none of the metals formed in supernova, their atmospheres would have been more transparent, and the whole process of star formation would have been different and clearly was

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 16/04/2023 05:56, Jan Panteltje wrote:

James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe evolved
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

New observations always put additional constraints on theoretical
models. It is likely that the first galaxies were a bit different to
modern ones because they were formed from the original Big Bang
aftermath material which is almost entirely hydrogen, helium and small
traces of lithium, beryllium etc.

Stars would have to be more massive and hotter at their cores before
they could ignite so it is quite likely that more material will be in
stars than in a modern galaxy that has processed material available.

Star ignition starts with Li6 & Li7 first fusing since it ignites more
easily than proton proton or proton deuterium fusion. Very massive stars
burn incredibly bright and die young. Once the first generation goes
supernova then you have all of the raw materials for normal metallicity
stars and solar systems to form.

This isn\'t a bad introduction for how it applies to stars in our galaxy
and similar ones. Population I (younger) and II (older) stars have
different metallicities.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/stellar-populations

--
Martin Brown

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:47:06 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <u1g95r$2f7el$2@dont-email.me>:

On 16/04/2023 05:56, Jan Panteltje wrote:
James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe evolved
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

New observations always put additional constraints on theoretical
models. It is likely that the first galaxies were a bit different to
modern ones because they were formed from the original Big Bang
aftermath material which is almost entirely hydrogen, helium and small
traces of lithium, beryllium etc.

Stars would have to be more massive and hotter at their cores before
they could ignite so it is quite likely that more material will be in
stars than in a modern galaxy that has processed material available.

Star ignition starts with Li6 & Li7 first fusing since it ignites more
easily than proton proton or proton deuterium fusion. Very massive stars
burn incredibly bright and die young. Once the first generation goes
supernova then you have all of the raw materials for normal metallicity
stars and solar systems to form.

This isn\'t a bad introduction for how it applies to stars in our galaxy
and similar ones. Population I (younger) and II (older) stars have
different metallicities.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/stellar-populations

Lots of info on there.
I see it this way
IF (so IF with two capitals) big bang happened, clumps of ultra dense matter
(big thing that exploded sort of a black hole or worse) flew outwards, spinning, forming 2 arms
(due to centrifugal forces working against gravity) and started spitting out matter that then formed galaxy arms
Simple picture.
Then what IS gravity? A le Sage model works for me, also in this context.
We need a mechanism (for OneStone\'s theory), like we need electrons and not Ohms law
to explain what happens in a vacuum rectifier and in chips,
dark matter babble has no meaning.
That makes all redshift measurement ever made suspicious.

And of course there may have been more bangs....
And some galaxies we see may be from other bangs.... far far away
And why should the bangs all happen at the same time...

We have so much to discover, like an ant in the country
And will we ever, with the few more neurons than a rat we have?
But it is fun looking !

 

[Martin Brown]

On 16/04/2023 10:06, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:47:06 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <u1g95r$2f7el$2@dont-email.me>:

On 16/04/2023 05:56, Jan Panteltje wrote:
James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe evolved
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

New observations always put additional constraints on theoretical
models. It is likely that the first galaxies were a bit different to
modern ones because they were formed from the original Big Bang
aftermath material which is almost entirely hydrogen, helium and small
traces of lithium, beryllium etc.

Stars would have to be more massive and hotter at their cores before
they could ignite so it is quite likely that more material will be in
stars than in a modern galaxy that has processed material available.

Star ignition starts with Li6 & Li7 first fusing since it ignites more
easily than proton proton or proton deuterium fusion. Very massive stars
burn incredibly bright and die young. Once the first generation goes
supernova then you have all of the raw materials for normal metallicity
stars and solar systems to form.

This isn\'t a bad introduction for how it applies to stars in our galaxy
and similar ones. Population I (younger) and II (older) stars have
different metallicities.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/stellar-populations

Lots of info on there.
I see it this way
IF (so IF with two capitals) big bang happened, clumps of ultra dense matter
(big thing that exploded sort of a black hole or worse) flew outwards, spinning, forming 2 arms
(due to centrifugal forces working against gravity) and started spitting out matter that then formed galaxy arms

That would be all very well but boring elliptical blob galaxies are a
lot more common than the ones with nice pretty spiral arms!

In fact the microwave background emission is incredibly uniform and
surprisingly close to the pattern of deviations predicted by BB
cosmology. If there are any refinements to be made (and I am sure there
are) then they will still retain what we have now as a weak field
limiting case (much like Newtonian dynamics still works perfectly well
for travelling on the Earth (though GPS requires relativistic corrections).

Simple picture.
Then what IS gravity? A le Sage model works for me, also in this context.
We need a mechanism (for OneStone\'s theory), like we need electrons and not Ohms law
to explain what happens in a vacuum rectifier and in chips,
dark matter babble has no meaning.
That makes all redshift measurement ever made suspicious.

It doesn\'t really matter if it works for you or not.
It makes no useful predictions and has no merit whatsoever.

And of course there may have been more bangs....
And some galaxies we see may be from other bangs.... far far away
And why should the bangs all happen at the same time...

There may well be other BB and it isn\'t quite beyond the realms of
possibility that string theory can predict how they might affect what we
see in our pocket universe.

We have so much to discover, like an ant in the country
And will we ever, with the few more neurons than a rat we have?
But it is fun looking !

The problem for astronomers and cosmologists in particular is that we
are only able to observe what is visible from our position inside a
spiral arm of our own galaxy. That means we have restricted views in
some directions where the milky way or local stars and dust get in the
way of more remote objects.

That said Cygnus-A is incredibly remote (though very close for something
so active) and in the plane of the milky way and the puny faint host
galaxy was lucky enough to be visible in the optical even so.

It was one of my interesting objects for high dynamic range imaging
although the VLA beat us to it in seeing the relativistic jets. It is
one of the brightest objects in the radio sky after the sun and Cas A.

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/mystery-object-in-cygnus-a-galaxy-1301201623/

So much observing time was used on it back in the 1980\'s that nobody
bothered to look again for a couple of decades...

--
Martin Brown

 

[server]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 04:56:55 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:

James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe evolved
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

How are super massive black holes formed ?

Isn\'t the current theory that visible matter in a galaxy
create big starts, which will eventually turn to star sized black
holes which in a long time merge into super massive black holes.

What about dark matter, could it create large black holes directly by
some other mechanism ? If there are existing super massive black holes
floating around, these could then collect visible hydrogen around
these holes forming stars and galaxies aroid black holes.

Thus black holes would exist before galaxies (and not the other way
around). This would also explain why the universe is too \"mature\" in
the early dates just after big bang.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:32:32 PM UTC+10, upsid...@downunder..com wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 04:56:55 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid
wrote:
James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe evolved
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm
How are super massive black holes formed ?

Isn\'t the current theory that visible matter in a galaxy
create big starts, which will eventually turn to star sized black
holes which in a long time merge into super massive black holes.

What about dark matter, could it create large black holes directly by
some other mechanism ? If there are existing super massive black holes
floating around, these could then collect visible hydrogen around
these holes forming stars and galaxies aroid black holes.

Thus black holes would exist before galaxies (and not the other way
around). This would also explain why the universe is too \"mature\" in
the early dates just after big bang.

It\'s an explanation. Part of the charm of dark matter is that it is hypothesised not to interact with itself by any mechanism other than gravity, so if it fell towards a black hole it could only fall in if it\'s orbital path went through the black hole, There\'s no way of bending that orbital path or getting rid of the kinetic energy it would have when it was close the the black hole, so it isn\'t a particularly plausible explanation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 16/04/2023 13:32, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 04:56:55 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe evolved
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

How are super massive black holes formed ?

The honest answer there is nobody knows.

Isn\'t the current theory that visible matter in a galaxy
create big starts, which will eventually turn to star sized black
holes which in a long time merge into super massive black holes.

I think that won\'t be fast enough although it isn\'t my area. I suspect
that what happens is that near the centre of a big galaxy you get a
scaled up version of a globular cluster where by expelling stars at
insanely high velocities the rest of the cluster becomes ever more
tightly bound until one day the density of matter is so high that not
even light can escape and then it is a super massive BH.

Such star clusters are visible around our galaxy. One of the easiest to
see in M13 visible under Hercules right shoulder with a pair of
binoculars but a spectacular thing in an 8\" scope or bigger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_13

Here is another take on how they might have grown so quickly in the
early universe backed up by numerical simulations:

ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/how-did-supermassive-black-holes-grow-so-fast

What about dark matter, could it create large black holes directly by
some other mechanism ? If there are existing super massive black holes
floating around, these could then collect visible hydrogen around
these holes forming stars and galaxies aroid black holes.

It is a chicken or egg situation. Unclear to me whether dark matter
encourages bigger density fluctuations in ordinary matter or ordinary
matter attracts dark matter to it gravitationally. Either way it seems
to be empirically true that a lot of galaxies have a super massive BH at
their centre (and all active radio galaxies, Seyferts and quasars do).

Thus black holes would exist before galaxies (and not the other way
around). This would also explain why the universe is too \"mature\" in
the early dates just after big bang.

Galaxies only exist because of the stars in them. It is possible that
JWST will see some of the very earliest stars going supernovae well
enough to figure out their mass from the light curve.


--
Martin Brown

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Apr 2023 10:51:47 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <u1ggfk$2ggjk$1@dont-email.me>:

On 16/04/2023 10:06, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:47:06 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <u1g95r$2f7el$2@dont-email.me>:

On 16/04/2023 05:56, Jan Panteltje wrote:
James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe evolved
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

New observations always put additional constraints on theoretical
models. It is likely that the first galaxies were a bit different to
modern ones because they were formed from the original Big Bang
aftermath material which is almost entirely hydrogen, helium and small
traces of lithium, beryllium etc.

Stars would have to be more massive and hotter at their cores before
they could ignite so it is quite likely that more material will be in
stars than in a modern galaxy that has processed material available.

Star ignition starts with Li6 & Li7 first fusing since it ignites more
easily than proton proton or proton deuterium fusion. Very massive stars
burn incredibly bright and die young. Once the first generation goes
supernova then you have all of the raw materials for normal metallicity
stars and solar systems to form.

This isn\'t a bad introduction for how it applies to stars in our galaxy
and similar ones. Population I (younger) and II (older) stars have
different metallicities.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/stellar-populations

Lots of info on there.
I see it this way
IF (so IF with two capitals) big bang happened, clumps of ultra dense matter
(big thing that exploded sort of a black hole or worse) flew outwards, spinning, forming 2 arms
(due to centrifugal forces working against gravity) and started spitting out matter that then formed galaxy arms

That would be all very well but boring elliptical blob galaxies are a
lot more common than the ones with nice pretty spiral arms!

In fact the microwave background emission is incredibly uniform and
surprisingly close to the pattern of deviations predicted by BB
cosmology. If there are any refinements to be made (and I am sure there
are) then they will still retain what we have now as a weak field
limiting case (much like Newtonian dynamics still works perfectly well
for travelling on the Earth (though GPS requires relativistic corrections).

Simple picture.
Then what IS gravity? A le Sage model works for me, also in this context.
We need a mechanism (for OneStone\'s theory), like we need electrons and not Ohms law
to explain what happens in a vacuum rectifier and in chips,
dark matter babble has no meaning.
That makes all redshift measurement ever made suspicious.

It doesn\'t really matter if it works for you or not.
It makes no useful predictions and has no merit whatsoever.

It (Le Sage) does make a lot of predictions
compression of matter by those particles outside a gravitational (so not shielded in that case) field
causes clocks to run faster (pendulum compressed makes it shorter).
Internal heating of celestial objects (that is now often said to be caused by \'nuclear processes\' but without any evidence)
like Pluto.

Why lights peed and gravitational speed seem to be the same (if EM radiation is just a state of the Le Sage particles)

Seems to me cosmology we see now is much like epicycles, string theory only for the best mathematicians like epicycles was
Things getting ever more complicated...

LOOK at what you see!!

And of course there may have been more bangs....
And some galaxies we see may be from other bangs.... far far away
And why should the bangs all happen at the same time...

There may well be other BB and it isn\'t quite beyond the realms of
possibility that string theory can predict how they might affect what we
see in our pocket universe.

We have so much to discover, like an ant in the country
And will we ever, with the few more neurons than a rat we have?
But it is fun looking !

The problem for astronomers and cosmologists in particular is that we
are only able to observe what is visible from our position inside a
spiral arm of our own galaxy. That means we have restricted views in
some directions where the milky way or local stars and dust get in the
way of more remote objects.

That said Cygnus-A is incredibly remote (though very close for something
so active) and in the plane of the milky way and the puny faint host
galaxy was lucky enough to be visible in the optical even so.

It was one of my interesting objects for high dynamic range imaging
although the VLA beat us to it in seeing the relativistic jets. It is
one of the brightest objects in the radio sky after the sun and Cas A.

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/mystery-object-in-cygnus-a-galaxy-1301201623/

So much observing time was used on it back in the 1980\'s that nobody
bothered to look again for a couple of decades...

Yes, the Hubble and James Webb project will show us more and more.
Sensitivity increases...

I liked to look at fireworks on new years evening as a kid
so many thing to see that look a lot like what we see in space.
The first thing you notice is the air interaction.
So Le Sage also provides that air that spreads the \'water\' as in a rotating garden sprinkler
dark matter !
Those stars in galaxies are not in orbit around the center.
Its simple!
No strings attached ;-)

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Apr 2023 15:32:25 +0300) it happened
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
<6hpn3idep94lte3099ga0ocms35r75mtka@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 04:56:55 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe evolved
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

How are super massive black holes formed ?

Isn\'t the current theory that visible matter in a galaxy
create big starts, which will eventually turn to star sized black
holes which in a long time merge into super massive black holes.

What about dark matter, could it create large black holes directly by
some other mechanism ? If there are existing super massive black holes
floating around, these could then collect visible hydrogen around
these holes forming stars and galaxies aroid black holes.

Thus black holes would exist before galaxies (and not the other way
around). This would also explain why the universe is too \"mature\" in
the early dates just after big bang.

Exactly what I think.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2023-04-16 03:47, Martin Brown wrote:

On 16/04/2023 05:56, Jan Panteltje wrote:
James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe
evolved
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

New observations always put additional constraints on theoretical
models. It is likely that the first galaxies were a bit different to
modern ones because they were formed from the original Big Bang
aftermath material which is almost entirely hydrogen, helium and small
traces of lithium, beryllium etc.

Stars would have to be more massive and hotter at their cores before
they could ignite so it is quite likely that more material will be in
stars than in a modern galaxy that has processed material available.

Star ignition starts with Li6 & Li7 first fusing since it ignites more
easily than proton proton or proton deuterium fusion. Very massive stars
burn incredibly bright and die young. Once the first generation goes
supernova then you have all of the raw materials for normal metallicity
stars and solar systems to form.

This isn\'t a bad introduction for how it applies to stars in our galaxy
and similar ones. Population I (younger) and II (older) stars have
different metallicities.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/stellar-populations

\"Metals\" defined as usual as anything with an atomic number over 16
(oxygen).

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

(Who remains grateful to his stellar structures prof (Jason Auman, may
his tribe increase) for discouraging his students from becoming
theoreticians.)

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:58:34 PM UTC+10, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2023-04-16 03:47, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/04/2023 05:56, Jan Panteltje wrote:
James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe
evolved
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

New observations always put additional constraints on theoretical
models. It is likely that the first galaxies were a bit different to
modern ones because they were formed from the original Big Bang
aftermath material which is almost entirely hydrogen, helium and small
traces of lithium, beryllium etc.

Stars would have to be more massive and hotter at their cores before
they could ignite so it is quite likely that more material will be in
stars than in a modern galaxy that has processed material available.

Star ignition starts with Li6 & Li7 first fusing since it ignites more
easily than proton proton or proton deuterium fusion. Very massive stars
burn incredibly bright and die young. Once the first generation goes
supernova then you have all of the raw materials for normal metallicity
stars and solar systems to form.

This isn\'t a bad introduction for how it applies to stars in our galaxy
and similar ones. Population I (younger) and II (older) stars have
different metallicities.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/stellar-populations


\"Metals\" defined as usual as anything with an atomic number over 16
(oxygen).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity

For an astronomer a \"metal\" is anything heavier than hydrogen or helium. Lithium and Berylium are lighter than oxygen, but definitely metals.

--
Bill sloman, Sydney

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 18/04/23 14:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:58:34 PM UTC+10, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2023-04-16 03:47, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/04/2023 05:56, Jan Panteltje wrote:
James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe
evolved
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

New observations always put additional constraints on theoretical
models. It is likely that the first galaxies were a bit different to
modern ones because they were formed from the original Big Bang
aftermath material which is almost entirely hydrogen, helium and small
traces of lithium, beryllium etc.

Stars would have to be more massive and hotter at their cores before
they could ignite so it is quite likely that more material will be in
stars than in a modern galaxy that has processed material available.

Star ignition starts with Li6 & Li7 first fusing since it ignites more
easily than proton proton or proton deuterium fusion. Very massive stars
burn incredibly bright and die young. Once the first generation goes
supernova then you have all of the raw materials for normal metallicity
stars and solar systems to form.

This isn\'t a bad introduction for how it applies to stars in our galaxy
and similar ones. Population I (younger) and II (older) stars have
different metallicities.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/stellar-populations


\"Metals\" defined as usual as anything with an atomic number over 16
(oxygen).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity

For an astronomer a \"metal\" is anything heavier than hydrogen or helium. Lithium and Berylium are lighter than oxygen, but definitely metals.

An astronomer is more likely to regard as a metal anything that isn\'t
made in main sequence stars.

Apparently solid hydrogen is metallic.. but I doubt astronomers would agree.

Clifford Heath

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 12:23:40 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 18/04/23 14:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:58:34 PM UTC+10, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2023-04-16 03:47, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/04/2023 05:56, Jan Panteltje wrote:
James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe
evolved
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

New observations always put additional constraints on theoretical
models. It is likely that the first galaxies were a bit different to
modern ones because they were formed from the original Big Bang
aftermath material which is almost entirely hydrogen, helium and small
traces of lithium, beryllium etc.

Stars would have to be more massive and hotter at their cores before
they could ignite so it is quite likely that more material will be in
stars than in a modern galaxy that has processed material available.

Star ignition starts with Li6 & Li7 first fusing since it ignites more
easily than proton proton or proton deuterium fusion. Very massive stars
burn incredibly bright and die young. Once the first generation goes
supernova then you have all of the raw materials for normal metallicity
stars and solar systems to form.

This isn\'t a bad introduction for how it applies to stars in our galaxy
and similar ones. Population I (younger) and II (older) stars have
different metallicities.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/stellar-populations

\"Metals\" defined as usual as anything with an atomic number over 16
(oxygen).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity

For an astronomer a \"metal\" is anything heavier than hydrogen or helium.. Lithium and Berylium are lighter than oxygen, but definitely metals.

An astronomer is more likely to regard as a metal anything that isn\'t made in main sequence stars.

Astronomers use the term metal to mean any atom that isn\'t hydrogen or helium, when they are talking about stellar compositions.

When they are talking about anything else, they will go by electrical conductivity, like everybody else. The words for metals date back way before any word for electricty, but since we\'ve known about electrical conductivity, metals have been pretty much defined by their capacity to conduct electricity easily.

> Apparently solid hydrogen is metallic.. but I doubt astronomers would agree.

They aren\'t going to change the way they talk about stellar compositions.

And solid hydrogen isn\'t metallic at normal pressures, You have to compress it quite a lot to get metallic conduction - diamond anvils seem to be required, and the transition conditions still aren\'t all that well-defined

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney