Merged: Why the James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts

[Mike Helland]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.01110

"Additionally, we explore structural and quantitative morphology measurements using Morfometryka, and show that galaxies at z>3 are not dominated by irregular and peculiar structures, either visually or quantitatively, as previously thought."

Just for the record, z=1 is (in theory) half way back to the beginning of the universe. z=3 is 75% the way back.

time since t=0 is 1/(1+z)

split from http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=328162

Posted By:jimbob

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.01110

"Additionally, we explore structural and quantitative morphology measurements using Morfometryka, and show that galaxies at z>3 are not dominated by irregular and peculiar structures, either visually or quantitatively, as previously thought."

Just for the record, z=1 is (in theory) half way back to the beginning of the universe. z=3 is 75% the way back.

time since t=0 is 1/(1+z)

That was the paper quoted by Eric Lerner in his idiotic piece on the web, claiming that JWST had shown that the BB didn't happen. The lead author turned up on Brian Keating's YT channel to essentially explain that Lerner needed to get more things right to be not even wrong

And good luck getting 1/ (1 + z) to work at anything other than very low z, where it is a decent approximation. In effect, it is usable at z << 1.
Lerner suggested it in a few papers for high z, which miraculously got through peer-review. Not sure how.

A poster by the name of 'ben m' trashed it on here in a thread started by Lerner;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=145

In effect, this is what happens if you use 1/(1 + z) at high z;

Lerner.jpg

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

That was the paper quoted by Eric Lerner in his idiotic piece on the web, claiming that JWST had shown that the BB didn't happen. The lead author turned up on Brian Keating's YT channel to essentially explain that Lerner needed to get more things right to be not even wrong

No it's not. This paper came out Monday.

Nice try.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

No it's not. This paper came out Monday.

Nice try.

Indeed. Getting mixed up with the 'Panic!' paper, which was for z > 3. However, as the lead author will tell you, neither paper has any relevance to the BBT, if that was your point. Either way, Lerner is trivially wrong, and 1/(z + 1) doesn't work.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Indeed. Getting mixed up with the 'Panic!' paper, which was for z > 3. However, as the lead author will tell you, neither paper has any relevance to the BBT, if that was your point. Either way, Lerner is trivially wrong, and 1/(z + 1) doesn't work.

You can keep track of all the papers coming out here:

https://arxiv.org/search/?query=jwst...&source=header

For the last 10 years, most indications are that the early universe is not at all what we expect it to be.

Some will cling to it, but it's clearly going away.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

No it's not. This paper came out Monday.

Strictly speaking, the paper has not yet come out. It has been submitted to ApJ. It has not been accepted yet.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

You can keep track of all the papers coming out here:

https://arxiv.org/search/?query=jwst...&source=header

For the last 10 years, most indications are that the early universe is not at all what we expect it to be.

Some will cling to it, but it's clearly going away.

And, as I said, those observations have precisely zero to do with BBT. Which is very well evidenced. And, as Dr. Rebecca Smethurst said, our current models have been built on Hubble observations. JWST can see more than Hubble. So, hardly surprising that our models of galaxy evolution will change. Sod all to do with the evidence for the BB.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And, as I said, those observations have precisely zero to do with BBT. Which is very well evidenced. And, as Dr. Rebecca Smethurst said, our current models have been built on Hubble observations. JWST can see more than Hubble. So, hardly surprising that our models of galaxy evolution will change. Sod all to do with the evidence for the BB.

Then why do you keep bringing it up?

I said the models of the early universe don't match what we're seeing. And that's true.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Then why do you keep bringing it up?

I said the models of the early universe don't match what we're seeing. And that's true.

Yep. And as I just told you, our models are based on limited data. Now we have more data. So, the models will change to accommodate the new data. That is how science works. Nobody said those models were written in stone. They were the best we could do with the available data.

Perhaps you'd like me to invite the lead author to comment?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Some will cling to it, but it's clearly going away.

No, they won't. The evidence now shows previous models to be wrong. Why would anyone cling on to models that observations show to be wrong?
Just like the CMB showed steady-state to be wrong. Which was why the supporters of SS models jumped ship en-masse. With a handful of exceptions.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Yep. And as I just told you, our models are based on limited data. Now we have more data. So, the models will change to accommodate the new data. That is how science works. Nobody said those models were written in stone. They were the best we could do with the available data.

Yeah.

And this was a common occurrence before JWST.

https://carnegiescience.edu/news/som...e-grew-quickly

"The finding raises new questions about how these galaxies formed so rapidly and why they stopped forming stars so early. It is an enigma that these galaxies seem to come out of nowhere. Another big question is what caused the galaxies to mature at such a young age and if some dramatic event might have caused premature aging."

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14164

"The galaxy is highly evolved: it has a large stellar mass and is heavily enriched in dust, with a dust-to-gas ratio close to that of the Milky Way. Dusty, evolved galaxies are thus present among the fainter star-forming population at z > 7."

Those are from 2014 and 2015.

Seems we're in the same boat, but somehow they didn't expect to see things we've already seen.

Quote:

Perhaps you'd like me to invite the lead author to comment?

Comment on what?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Yeah.

And this was a common occurrence before JWST.

https://carnegiescience.edu/news/som...e-grew-quickly

"The finding raises new questions about how these galaxies formed so rapidly and why they stopped forming stars so early. It is an enigma that these galaxies seem to come out of nowhere. Another big question is what caused the galaxies to mature at such a young age and if some dramatic event might have caused premature aging."

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14164

"The galaxy is highly evolved: it has a large stellar mass and is heavily enriched in dust, with a dust-to-gas ratio close to that of the Milky Way. Dusty, evolved galaxies are thus present among the fainter star-forming population at z > 7."

Those are from 2014 and 2015.

Seems we're in the same boat, but somehow they didn't expect to see things we've already seen.

And? Did I not just say that galaxy formation models will need to be tweaked?

Quote:

Comment on what?

The fact that what JWST is seeing has nothing to do with anything other than galaxy formation models. It says precisely zero about anything else. What would you have scientists do? Make a best guess based on the evidence available at the time, and then refuse to change it when better evidence becomes available? Why stick to faulty models? Maybe you'd need to ask people like Lerner, Hoyle, et al, about why one would do that.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And? Did I not just say that galaxy formation models will need to be tweaked?

If solving the "enigma that these galaxies seem to come out of nowhere" just needed a couple tweaks, I think they would have made them in 2014.

Quote:

Maybe you'd need to ask people like Lerner, Hoyle, et al, about why one would do that.

I really wish Lerner would stay out of this, and that you'd not keep bringing him here as strawman. That's just lame.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

If solving the "enigma that these galaxies seem to come out of nowhere" just needed a couple tweaks, I think they would have made them in 2014.

Nope. There wasn't enough data, and those observations were from ~ 1.6 Ga after the BB.

Quote:

I really wish Lerner would stay out of this, and that you'd not keep bringing him here as strawman. That's just lame.

Glad you agree that he is a clueless irrelevance. However, he is the only crackpot making claims about JWST. So, that is all I have to work on.

Your claims, if I may sum them up, are as follows;

JWST shows us that our galaxy formation models were not perfect, and need to be tweaked.

And the claims of the real scientists, dealing with the data, say;

JWST shows us that our galaxy formation models were not perfect, and need to be tweaked.

So, where is the story?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Nope. There wasn't enough data, and those observations were from ~ 1.6 Ga after the BB.

There are mature dusty galaxies at unexpected z. What more data do you need? The model should produce what we observe. It didn't 10 years ago, it doesn't today.

Quote:

Glad you agree that he is a clueless irrelevance. However, he is the only crackpot making claims about JWST. So, that is all I have to work on.

We should haven't to work non sequiturs or ad hominems.

Quote:

Your claims, if I may sum them up, are as follows;

JWST shows us that our galaxy formation models were not perfect, and need to be tweaked.

And the claims of the real scientists, dealing with the data, say;

JWST shows us that our galaxy formation models were not perfect, and need to be tweaked.

So, where is the story?

My claims are that papers going back at least ten years show the "early universe" to be just like the nearby universe, making it essentially a nothing burger of an idea in light of the empirical evidence.

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

You can keep track of all the papers coming out here:

https://arxiv.org/search/?query=jwst...&source=header

For the last 10 years, most indications are that the early universe is not at all what we expect it to be.

Some will cling to it, but it's clearly going away.

And you have had it explained to you in painful detail hundreds of times that “the early universe is not what we expect it to be” has to do with details of galaxy formation and growth, not anything to do with the underlying cosmology.

Read, for comprehension, one thing ever.
I’ll be over here not holding my breath.
Because I would die before you were able to read anything and comprehend what it said.

I would die from lack of oxygen, whose very existence in the quantities we find it confirms the cosmology you claim doesn’t work

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

My claims are that papers going back at least ten years show the "early universe" to be just like the nearby universe,.

Errrr, no, they don't. As Ferreira pointed out to Lerner.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

And you have had it explained to you in painful detail hundreds of times that “the early universe is not what we expect it to be” has to do with details of galaxy formation and growth, not anything to do with the underlying cosmology.

Models of galaxy formation can make a galaxy like ours in 12 Gy.

They can't do it in 1 Gy.

You think the model of formation just needs a "tweak".

That's been suggested for at least a decade. "Tweak" may be a understatement.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Then why do you keep bringing it up?

Because we know that in short order you will repeat this:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

My claims are that papers going back at least ten years show the "early universe" to be just like the nearby universe, making it essentially a nothing burger of an idea in light of the empirical evidence.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Errrr, no, they don't. As Ferreira pointed out to Lerner.

Leaving the names and personalities out of it, what about the early universe we learned about years ago is still true today based on empirical data?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Leaving the names and personalities out of it, what about the early universe we learned about years ago is still true today based on empirical data?

Why would I leave names out of it, when I can quote the lead author of the relevant papers? So, from Dr. Brian Keating's blog;

Leonardo Ferreira:

Quote:

The paper is concerned with the rest-frame optical of galaxies at z>3, which Hubble could not observe. A lot of what we are seeing is that, those galaxies that were observed more to the UV, can now be observed spatially in the optical, so @Dr Brian Keating is correct to show that for galaxies well resolved in Hubble, nothing changes. And we still see lot's of mergers though, it's not like they are absent. And some of the disks can be undergoing mergers as well. One particular point that is interesting for follow up studies is that, for example, galaxies could reform disks after mergers more easily than we thought previously. The paper has nothing to do with the Big Bang. We don't even go that far back, ~1 billion years after the BB.

I think Lerner case is that he is not even wrong. He needs to get more things right to be even wrong.

Lead author of the paper here.

My bolding.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Leaving the names and personalities out of it, what about the early universe we learned about years ago is still true today based on empirical data?

The Big Bang. The empirical data for it - the fact that the universe is expanding, the three degree CMB - is unchanged and undisputed.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

The paper is concerned with the rest-frame optical of galaxies at z>3, which Hubble could not observe. A lot of what we are seeing is that, those galaxies that were observed more to the UV, can now be observed spatially in the optical, so @Dr Brian Keating is correct to show that for galaxies well resolved in Hubble, nothing changes. And we still see lot's of mergers though, it's not like they are absent. And some of the disks can be undergoing mergers as well.

Mergers are happening in the early universe. And they happen nearby too.

The point is there is nothing unique about the early universe, contrary to decades of thinking otherwise.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Mergers are happening in the early universe. And they happen nearby too.

The point is there is nothing unique about the early universe, contrary to decades of thinking otherwise.

You understand neither previous nor current thinking about the early universe.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You understand neither previous nor current thinking about the early universe.

Here's a galaxy merger happening 255 Mly away:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_2623

In 4 billion years, the Milky Way and Andromeda are predicted to merge.

And mergers are observed in the "early universe" too.

So what is different about the early universe and the local universe?

Not in theory. But by observation?

It's like we took picture of a city sky line when it was foggy out. Then we took a picture after the fog lifts. The second picture supercedes the first.

[rjh01]

One obvious difference between the early universe and now is that galaxies would be much smaller and more numerous. There would also be less metal in the early universe. I also wonder what the ratio has changed over time between the mass of the black hole in the centre of galaxies and the mass of the entire galaxy.

The early universe means when it is 2 billion years old.

[wobs]

Originally Posted by rjh01

One obvious difference between the early universe and now is that galaxies would be much smaller and more numerous. There would also be less metal in the early universe. I also wonder what the ratio has changed over time between the mass of the black hole in the centre of galaxies and the mass of the entire galaxy.

The early universe means when it is 2 billion years old.

One of my favourite facts about the early universe is that galaxies that we from the era, appear larger the further away they are. XKCD explains it better than me:
https://xkcd.com/2622/

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by wobs

One of my favourite acts about the early universe is that galaxies that we from the era, appear larger the further away they are. XKCD explains it better than me:
https://xkcd.com/2622/

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/...meter-distance



This is only true if the universe is expanding.

Otherwise, the farther we look out, the harder things are to see, and the bigger they are, the more likely they are to be seen.

That's called the Malmquist observational selection bias:

"The Malmquist bias is an effect in observational astronomy which leads to the preferential detection of intrinsically bright objects. It was first described in 1922 by Swedish astronomer Gunnar Malmquist (1893–1982), who then greatly elaborated upon this work in 1925.[1][2] In statistics, this bias is referred to as a selection bias or data censoring. It affects the results in a brightness-limited survey, where stars below a certain apparent brightness cannot be included. Since observed stars and galaxies appear dimmer when farther away, the brightness that is measured will fall off with distance until their brightness falls below the observational threshold. "

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

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

This is only true if the universe is expanding.

Is there currently any serious doubt that it is?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Is there currently any serious doubt that it is?

Only at the fringes.

It's interesting to think that the farthest galaxies we see are so big in appearance because they were closer to us when their light was emitted than galaxies with much lower redshifts, rather than them actually being big.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

In effect, this is what happens if you use 1/(1 + z) at high z;

Attachment 47323

Light with a z=2 doesn't come from twice as far away as light with z=1.

z=1 has been traveling for ~7 billion years.

z=2 has been traveling for ~9.333 billion years.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

In effect, this is what happens if you use 1/(1 + z) at high z;

Attachment 47323

It should look like this:



At z=1, you're halfway to the beginning of the universe, call that d=1, which would be half of Hubble's length.

Over this distance, a photon will lose half its energy.

If you double that distance, so d=2, then z=infinity, the photon will have redshifted away the other half of its energy.

[zooterkin]

What would happen if the second photon started with 16eV?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

What would happen if the second photon started with 16eV?

At z=1 the photon would be 8eV, and at double the distance z=infinity and the photon would have 0eV.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

At z=1 the photon would be 8eV, and at double the distance z=infinity and the photon would have 0eV.

So what makes it behave differently from the first photon, which also has 8eV at d=1?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

So what makes it behave differently from the first photon, which also has 8eV at d=1?

The first photon has an 8 eV at d=1 because that's what is stipulated by the scenario that was given.

Just so we're clear, there are only two photons in the image, the one on top (that travels d=1) and the one on bottom (that travels d=2).

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

The first photon has an 8 eV at d=1 because that's what is stipulated by the scenario that was given.

Just so we're clear, there are only two photons in the image, the one on top (that travels d=1) and the one on bottom (that travels d=2).

Yes, but we've replaced the second one with one which starts at 16eV at d=2, and is then, according to you, 8eV at d=1 and 0eV at d=0.

What is different between the two photons at d=1? Why does one lose half its energy, but the other all of its energy?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Yes, but we've replaced the second one with one which starts at 16eV at d=2, and is then, according to you, 8eV at d=1 and 0eV at d=0.

What is different between the two photons at d=1? Why does one lose half its energy, but the other all of its energy?

Because it matters where the signal started.

Do you know where electrical relays come from?

Telegraphs. You can send a signal over a wire for so long that it degrades. So they had batteries in places that could receive a signal, and trigger a fresh one.

You're thinking about it as if there was a relay at d=1 in the bottom scenario.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Because it matters where the signal started.

Do you know where electrical relays come from?

Telegraphs. You can send a signal over a wire for so long that it degrades. So they had batteries in places that could receive a signal, and trigger a fresh one.

You're thinking about it as if there was a relay at d=1 in the bottom scenario.

At d=1, there are two photons, each has an energy of 8eV. What property of the second one means that it loses all its energy while the other loses only half?

[IGMisBestM]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Otherwise, the farther we look out, the harder things are to see, and the bigger they are, the more likely they are to be seen.

That's called the Malmquist observational selection bias:

"The Malmquist bias is an effect in observational astronomy which leads to the preferential detection of intrinsically bright objects. It was first described in 1922 by Swedish astronomer Gunnar Malmquist (1893–1982), who then greatly elaborated upon this work in 1925.[1][2] In statistics, this bias is referred to as a selection bias or data censoring. It affects the results in a brightness-limited survey, where stars below a certain apparent brightness cannot be included. Since observed stars and galaxies appear dimmer when farther away, the brightness that is measured will fall off with distance until their brightness falls below the observational threshold. "

Actually the opposite would be true. A Malmquist bias is about luminosity, not size. It says that if you take a magnitude/flux limited sample you will have an overabundance of luminous galaxies compared to a volume limited sample, because the intrinsically-bright objects can be detected out to greater distance. It says nothing about physical size. In practice galaxy samples are not just magnitude limited, but there is also a surface brightness limit. Galaxies with larger physical sizes at the same fixed luminosity are harder to detect, because their light is spread over more pixels each with it's own noise. This is part of the reason ultra diffuse galaxies are difficult to detect. So actually the bias is the other way around.