The new shirt design featuring James Webb Telescope is sort of here! teespring.com/stores/whatdamath As before, the proceeds are going to Save the Children focusing on the kids in Ukraine
So you look at a part of the sky described as small as a grain of sand find the furthest galaxy in that grain of sand price of sky and say. YEP!!!! That’s as far as the universe goes that’s how old it is please explain that to me? 😂 😆
Hello. What I don't understand is why they say that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old if what we see is just the observable Universe, the part that is not traveling FTL away from us. The Universe could be a lot bigger, and then a lot older. So why do they say that it formed 13.8 billion years ago, based on what? And a second question is how could we even see galaxies 36 billion years far away, if they are so far away shouldn't they be outside the observable Universe? TIA
Imagine a few photons from a galaxy, traveling 13.4 billion years, then by chance being gravitationally lensed along the way, to be detected by a telescope, then transmitted to a planet and then uploaded to a computer network where millions of wonderful sentient beings can see you on miniature screens.
I have a feeling that in a few years we're either going realize that the universe is actually older than we thought, or were going to find out the beginning of the universe is a lot more different then we thought. To think this is only ONE of James Webbs missions, this telescope has potential to find life in our Universe too! This is the most exciting time for astronomy in a long long time
It's very likely JWST will give us answers to questions we haven't even thought to ask yet. Think of what we could do if they finally perfected nuclear fusion? Having that amount of power at our disposal could unlock our universe to us, or even potentially other universes too.
There has always been a lot of problems with the big bang theory. The "inflation"-phase and its temporary extreme speed. The baryon asymmetry, and so on. It is very possible that the universe is a lot older than we assumed in modern times OR that its behaviour including all the constants changes a lot with time. IF the big bang really happened maybe the extremely hot phase which supposedly created the CMB happened way further back in time. Can't wait for more! Very exciting times indeed!
El.blanco I agree -- great conjecture! But I feel as though the current consensus theory is already so contorted into a nearly self-reinforcing position that it will be very hard for scientists to break free of it. For example, if tomorrow we actually got an image of a galaxy that had sent light to us 100 billion years ago, our theories would deny that this is what happened.
@@spacebear916 not a lot of problems with the BBT. BB happened. The discrepancy is when stars first began forming. And then when the first galaxies began to form.
so sorry to hear of your loss Anton. I can't imagine how painful that is. Youre doing an amazing thing for other children with this charity though. Good for you man.
yea man maybe alien FBI is gonna show up to our planet and say stop it now don't go too far and then we are gonna say fuck u alien fbi and start shooting and then they shoot back and pew pew pew and the first intergalactic war begins
I LOVE when scientists find something that makes them say, "wait, that's weird!" That's where new science knowledge is born! And I just watched Dr. Becky's coverage of these newest potential record-holders, so now I'm tickled to see your take on it, too!
It also makes scientific "facts" into jokes because old facts become fictions and all the people who threw those "facts" in the faces of opposition are now made fools. It's a waiting game as to when people will realize that everything we "know" is a matter of faith rather than concrete knowledge. We "know" nothing.
I remember growing up in the 80s and having exactly two books (that were actually my older sister's) on astronomy. One was the 9 planets of the solar system, with only ~1986 images of Pluto, and the other was a pretty general discussion of galaxies and stars. And not a word about planets around other stars, since we didn't know they existed yet - we suspected, but had not confirmed or (to our knowledge at the time) observed the signs of any. And now there's today. Such a massive difference in 30 years!
Humans have known that there were other galaxies or "island universes" since the early 1900s, but the idea had been suspected much earlier. It was one of the ideas proposed to explain Charles Messier's list of objects, published in 1774. By the 1970s and 80s, humanity knew how far away a lot of the brighter galaxies were. So this all happened in about 100 years, but the idea is more than 100 years older than that.
So, imagine living in a world where it was believed that earth was the centre of everything, that the lights in the sky were angel lights, and that those few crackpots out there who claimed this was all wrong could be tortured until they rejected their claims, then burned to death for daring say it. Not all that long ago. I wonder what people will think of our ignorance today.
Great things are afoot in the world of astronomy! Perhaps the universe is older than 13.8 billion years? I never expected to see such huge stars, and galaxies, at such tremendous distances, and getting ever closer and closer to the beginning of the universe. The JWST is proving to be an astounding instrument of discovery! Thank you, Anton, for this amazing film.
yes, now because its known gravity can effect time, if the universe was much closer to itself way back then, how would time act? i feel our current estimates are based on a constant that doesnt really exist
I believe that you are correct to believe that the Universe is older than 13.7by. A decade ago the Newzeland astronomers found a galaxy at a 15by distance. Unfortunately, their discovery was suppressed. The truth cannot be suppressed for long and more and more "controversy" discoveries will surface. If you don't want to wait longer, I will suggest finding the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
I genuinely envy the scientists and enthusiasts with the skills needed to analyze the James Webb telescope data, this must be the time of their lives, data that in the past wouldn't be easily accessible to the public is dumped in high resolution for anyone to sift thru and discover new exciting things, with so much new, never before seen data being available there's enough discoveries to go around
@@unicorndelta6071 It operates colder than space, so if it gives off heat, it can see it, up to the size of a pixel in the image. Anything smaller than a pixel, and its going to be tough to tell if its just noise.
I found the following in a paper after some research The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.
@@MCsCreations that is hefty presumption dear boy. I would suggest referencing the latest books on astrophysics, written by yours truly and can be found in the British library in kings cross London. I have several edition, I would bring a gardeners weal barrow if I were you, the weight and girth of 1 book along could render a men invalid for years of he was to lift unprepared.
I'm learning a lot about scientific thinking through Anton's stories - how fine and slow it is and how it keeps its respectability through the contributions of many teams of experts. It is most impressive.
@Brenton Carter I'm hoping the recent rain n drop in temperatures is going to lead to me enjoying the consumption of some Laetiporus sulphureus within a week.
I had a feeling it wouldn't take long for JWST observations to start challenging conventional thought of the evolution of the universe. That said, I didn't think it would start happening this early.
The challenge of the "dogma" never stops. If you are interested to find out some different facts I will recommend you find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
I would be interested in hearing a discussion of how many generations of stars it took to create the mix of elements found in the Milky Way. With all the hype on the data from one of JWT’s photos, it’s sounding like we’re in for lots theories trying to justify contradictory findings. JWT is going to be the source of lots of sleepless nights for likely generations of astronomers.
It's because evolution is false, lol. Creationist predicted this exact find before JWST was even sent out, including me. Expect more, it won't stop. Either they will invoke rapid evolution through some sort of "unknown" mechanism and or modify the age of the universe somehow. ;).
@@kinetic7609 Keep reading from the scriptures pal. As for the age of the universe, do you understand what a theory is and how science operates? I'm not anti-religion but people like you are backwards knuckle draggers.
WHAT A NONSENSE....?!? Just because piece of paper (Degree). you the people in the west speak without any knowledge, what you are talking about is just lies without any real facts, you have not changed just like your ancestors who like to colonize, destroy nature, and also make up stories like parents who tell fairy tales to their children.
@@kinetic7609 I think both are wrong, evolution and creation. because it is a Ideas that has been seen by the human brain, we can create something like a table, chair, etc. & humans finally think, "if we can create a table, whatever it is, then this world could be created by something". Because Creation Was The Ideas That Already In The Mind Of Human, We Don't Know How The World Came To, Because We Don't Know What Ideas Are Out There.
Incredible but not unexpected that a tool made specifically to spot such distant objects actually is able to do so. It is still a remarkable find, and we can thank all the JWST team and everyone involved in it's design, creation and launch for this. The dark Ages goes as far as 1 billion years so we still have room to dig that far away, being able to spot a galaxy almost 1/3 to 1/2 into the dark ages in a few weeks of JWST life is crazy never the less.
This guy could be living in the same dwelling as you, own a green tarp, a PC and a camera and yet be, imo, amongst the best journalistic oriented RUclipsrs when it comes to space. Also NEVER using "shocking" titles nor caps only in the titles, makes an audience feel respected 🙏
With a redshift of 20 or greater, we're talking about galaxies that are well into the Dark Ages period that shouldn't be visible at all. This means one of two things; 1) The presumption that there was, in fact, a "Dark Age" where neutral hydrogen blocked light from reaching out very far at the very beginnings of the universe didn't happen, thus upsetting our understanding of this period and how the cosmic microwave background radiation was created, or 2) our estimates of the age of the universe are way off. If it turns out that there is in fact a Galaxy at a v20 (or possibly others that are at an even greater redshift) then the age of the universe may not be at the (roughly) 14 billion years we think it to be. In fact, it could be far older.
So we can see more stuff we know much less about than ever before. This rabbit hole of space exploration/cosmology is getting deeper, longer, wider and more mysterious the more we find out about it. Fascinating.
Nevermind that.... It would be EXTREMELY unlikely that we found the first galaxy ever on day one. By zooming into a spot on the night sky the size of one tenth of your finger nail. There is quite a lot more to discover before we can say that.
Well yeah that much is obvious lol, but it was the farthest we seen at that time making it a record holder. People always misunderstand, new oldest found, and really being the oldest.
@@dj-rocketman8545 where did god come from for that matter? Its the same question just transferred one level up. You can play that game infinitely, and what makes more sense is exactly that... There is not a need for a creator when the universe is recursive in, of, and on itself
It is good to see you smiling, Anton. I hope to see more of it. Thank you for, as you regularly do, sharing such fascinating information about who, and what we are, where we came from, where we are going, and some of what the rest of our universe did, is doing, and will do.
@@youtubeconnollyfamily One of many lead engineers on the mechanical side (assembly), but I also led a tiny amount of electrical test (not the instruments). I worked the Sunshield.
@@External2737 that’s awesome man. Must be so cool to know that you were part of that telescope.I’m only 36 but I have four young children and one of them has a dream of working for NASA one day as a astronaut or a engineer. Luckily he loves math.
@@nicholaspirtlestudent539 Yes, with NGSS. I used to give tours of JWST (and Spacepark). Everyone contributed. With such a massive project, its tough for anyone to say what major thing they did until you were an sub-IPT lead (above me on JWST). Tons of hard work (I burned out).
Interesting. What do you make of these discoveries? Do you think they will find fully developed galaxies much further out? I personally think that astronomers will be forced to scrap their standard theories of the age and development of the universe. Time will tell.
All of this new info ... from ONE image ! What will we learn in the following months and years?. Many thanks Anton, I look forward to your future updates.
So, something I have wondered since my earliest astrophysics courses is whether or not we have a fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light. Namely, we make this assumption that the amplitude of a photon (measuring the wave aspect of course) will certainly reduce because of distance but that the frequency will stay constant as it propagates through space. This idea is what has driven us to this idea of dark energy, which frankly reeks of invisible purple dragon to me (if you know the metaphor). What if over extreme distance the frequency naturally elongates due to drag against the E/M medium in which the wave is propagating? That would mean that the longer the distance, the greater the red-shift. Combined with ACTUAL Doppler shift, that could appear like things are "accelerating." It would also match up with the directional-dependent observations of the Hubble Constant, and provide an explanation for these objects that appear to be way older than they should be. In short, we ended up fabricating this idea of Dark Energy because we made an assumption about light that we cannot test (we would not possibly be able to model it in a laboratory), but a more reasonable explanation to help model this outlier objects is that we made the wrong assumptions. I have not worked that logic through with some of the standard candles, but there is probably a way forward with those arguments too.
Dude you have it! I wish I could talk to you because you actually are on the right track, I know the universe is actually young and this makes perfect sense.
@@seancurtis7359 How young? Also how do you know, and why haven't you shared this knowledge with the rest of us (And claimed a Nobel prize that would result for such a massive discovery?)
Actually, the universe is far larger and older than current theories assume. JWST has already given the keys to grasp this, and it has not done any long exposure deep stares into areas that appear to be empty space between the galaxies we can now see. Far older and larger than expected...
Photon's frequency isn't affected by the medium. It's affected only by gravity, scattering, red/blue shifting or by space itself changing size - this is where the idea of dark energy comes from, backed up by Einstein's equations. It's a scientific hypothesis but it hasn't been invented out of thin air. And what do you mean by "drag against the E/M medium" in the case of a massless, uncharged waveform? Electromagnetism doesn't affect it, distance doesn't affect it...so it either passes through or it doesn't and the photons caught by the telescope are those that passed through. Obviously.
since i was a teenager reading the scientific discoveries in astronomy i had always thought that the theories about the big bang and the age of the universe were only as good or as accurate as our ability to construct telescopes to view far into space . JWST is the scientists and astronomers dream instrument to date , bashing the theories and creating new data and it has only been operating for a few weeks , the future is bright and will be exciting for decades to come or until a better telescope is made that will surpass the JWST .
Despite the damages already inflicted on JWST, its discoveries are remarkable. It's awesome to see peak technology after 30 years of specific development. Can't wait to see what it will be able to discover within the next months and years. Also thx Anton, if i hit 11pm on working days i'm always glad to see your upload within one hour later. I really appreciate your content - be it space or crazy other science related stuff
the damage done is overstated. the JWT is testing how safe this orbit it for small stations and such, we didn't and don't know how safe it is from small impacts. we expected 1 hit a month, and we do see that, but there was 1 larger than any expected as well, still the original mission time is only a few years and this is totally expected and prepared for it to get damaged this way.
Hubble was not without its issues after launch. All the delays helped to get it right the first time. It appears that it is already producing science justifying its existence even if it gets smashed to pieces to tomorrow by a space rock.
Everytime I see clickbait articles about "a new earth", "groundbraking technologies", "proof of alien life" etc. I turn to Anton. Thank you so much for teaching so much fascinating stuff without oversensationalizing!
I predict we'll find that a lot of noise from the start of the universe actually are galaxies too. And that will raise a lot of confused questions and make new science possible.
well if they push back the age of the universe, they will just push back the CMBR, which, like the black hole images, is bogus science. Many people like the channel Sky scholar, have pointed out all the flaws of the data. And a pier review said the only way to observe the data, is to place the equipment to map the CMBR, exactly where the James web is, in it's location in space. Which is why the james web is where it is in space, because the data would be otherwise false.
You know, darling - I love your knowledge and the way you're able to lay it out so that a relative layperson can understand it. But what I love most of all is your smile x
Anton, you never disappoint! Let’s hope that humanity’s intellect and imagination can keep pace with the potential discoveries JWT will ultimately provide. Thank you.
Everything about Anton's presentation is amiable for my understanding of astronomy. Only "Cool Worlds" matches his intelligent sequencing of events, introductory information, emphasis on critical facts and recapitulating those developments that might be a challenge for citizen scientists to absorb or navigate. Great job, Anton--So glad you're here. For astronomy, this site and Cool Worlds are all I need. If only news and reviews of evolutionary biology, paleontology and anthropology were as easy to gather . . .
Your so right. I love antons videos, so informative and helpful and hes such a wonderful person =), if your looking for paleontology I like Ezekiel at Raptor chatter channel. He does monthly reviews of new discoveries and updates so you might want to check him out ;), Keep it up Anton. You've helped me so much through lockdown with your videos and continue to inspire my curiosity and Interest in astronomy. Thank you so much you absolute legend =)
@@Chris-eh8mi Cool Worlds is a proper channel, which I have watched, too. The bots don't go at such lengths to shill their products. Usually it is something like 'great video, btw this channel/website is good too (URL)' without *any* reference to the topic of the video to which this 'comment' had been sent.
@@Chris-eh8mi I'm not a bot, and I hope I don't write like one. Cool Worlds is one of the few science channels on RUclips actually produced by the top experts in a given field; most of the papers David Kipping references--usually on exoplanets--are papers he authored.
Respectfully intended, but its not possiblle. Why you ask ? Because we would then be required to adjust our models, as has been done throughout history. Science tells what it currently can test, prove repeat.. in light of new evidence that can hold to peer review new models are accepted and prior obes are modified or abandoned.. this is not in the discredit of science its the greatest thing about science, it accepts reality regardless. Science is a unified human endeavor towards truth .
Imagine being a photon from a distant galaxy, traveling 13.4 billion years, being gravitationally lenses to the perfect angle only to miss the telescope by an inch and just hitting the metal
The early universe was a chaotic place. The speed at which everything was expanding was incomprehensible. I believe it would have been easy for an early galaxy surrounded by all that matter to have began to clump and grow dramatically. Something that would take hundreds of millions to billions may have taken hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form.
I watch every single video you create Anton. I can't watch your channel without a little touch of jealousy for the kids you teach if you are still doing that. I certainly never had a teacher with such an amazing mind, gentle nature, and since good faith desire to teach. I am retired, living on social security and military disability so I am contributing the maximum amount I can. I strongly encourage everyone to signup and contribute to your good works. Thank you again my friend.
Reminds me of the methuselah star, when it was first found it had an estimate age that was older than the age of the universe. Later techniques and improved technologies pushed that estimate back down into more resonalable "Not quite as old as the universe" I wonder if this result will hold in a few years?
When I first saw the Hubble Deep Field I knew something was wrong - too many galaxies too far back in time. Now this discovery seems to have confirmed my suspicion that the Big Bang theory was wrong. I remember my Open University tutor (he was once the director of the Greenwich Observatory in Cambridge) asking us all in the tutorial who believed the Big Bang Theory. It was interesting that he asked. Fred Hoyle invented the phrase 'Big Bang' to describe his opponents theory, his own being a sort of constantly forming universe, the so-called Steady State theory. Looks like Fred Hoyle might have been right all along! And I wonder if my tutor knew Fred Hoyle too.
I had a hunch that JWST discoveries would blow up our standard theories about the development of the universe. I predict that astronomers will be forced to scrap the Big Bang theory altogether. I believe they will discover fully developed galaxies all the way back to the theorized beginning of our universe and possibly beyond. If I understand correctly, JWST has only trained it's instruments at deep space for 24 hours? What happens when they instruct JWST to take a deep field picture that spans several days like the Hubble telescope did?
And mind boggling is it that we can already see to 50m light years after the creation of the universe. It’s beyond unbelievable. Wonder how far out we can see into the universe’s expansion. I guess the observable universe is larger now, or no?
Is there a reason why they're saying that only a few of the red shift 12+ galaxies exist? I mean this is one picture of an unimaginably tiny region of space and we just happened to chance on a potential record holder already?
Anton I just realized you are now over 1 million Subscribers! I remember when I subscribed to your channel when you only had 7k Subscribers. You have really come along way, and I am so happy you are getting the recognition you deserve. Bless you man.
My sort of question is still, if James Webb (like Hubble) can see so far away, what happens when you point it at an object much closer to us? An object like Andromeda or even a star that is "far away" but still in our own galaxy?? After all if you pointed this at Tabby's Star could you actually see what makes it so strange first hand and up close???? Another question I have to ask too, is it possible to see a "gravitationally lens-ed" galaxy that has already been "gravitationally lens-ed" by yet ANOTHER galaxy??? In other words what happens if you "accidently" find a galaxy that is behind another galaxy which is actually behind yet another galaxy??? I am not saying it is even possible, but when you consider "perspective" (like in photography) imagine an image of three children all standing in a "line of sight" where each child looks smaller than the next, with one child appearing to hold the other child and so on!!! It does make sense that you could potentially see well beyond the distance of the initial image if your "line of sight" is in an alignment that we don't even realize we are looking at!! And this may appear as an "optical illusion", like in my example above of three kids one holding another, holding another!!
Very much agree with your first point on viewing closer objects. Although JWT is obviously an amazing project, i cant help feeling a little disappointed (so far) that its not giving us much more detailed info on our systems nearest neighbours.
JWST did already make some images of Saturn. Don't worry there will be some more "closeup" pictures of nearby objects. Sadly they still won't be good enough to see for example the destroyed planets orbiting tabby's star. But you will certainly see some close rouge planet that is big enough to do some fusion ( brown giants).
@@johncritic-doe4504 Don't get me wrong I am happy to see JWST looking at distant galaxies a few billion years ago, at the far reaches of space!! BUT it seems to me, that there are a lot of stars in our own galaxy we have never even looked at is all!! And I don't mean using Webb to look at Saturn, as much as, for example, looking at Proxima planets and taking a "close look at them"! Basically seeing what is in our "own neighborhood" is all!! It just seems like if you want to see something "really interesting" you don't point the telescope at a galaxy that was a million years old when the Big Bang Happened, as much as you would if you point that thing at something you could actually SEE up close and personal like!! We found a couple 1000 exo planets nearby and what happens when you point Webb at one of them??? That is my question, and I would find that pretty interesting is all!!!
I like to imagine if James Webb looked in the deep field for 14 days rather than 12 hours, we would see evidence of a second big bang, as the asymmetry in our universe could of been the result of multiple expansions colliding into one another, or perhaps the energy readings of matter anti-matter collisions from a part of the universe consisting entirely of anti-matter.
I like the way you show the actual real black and white photos they get before using cgi to show us what we get in the propaganda videos as renditions of what it would look like. Why do you think we only get photos that we've had already for decades but with updated cgi? Nebula never come in color either and is always a guess at what they would look like with color.
I always find it revealing how when we think we know things something comes up that makes us go "hang on a minute, that doesn't fit our understanding of things". It shows how limited we, and science, are by what we can detect. For instance, we can detect things in 4 dimensions; length, width, height and time. There could however be more dimensions that envelop our 4 dimensional reality. There could be a 5th dimension enveloping several 4-dimensional realities in which these 4-dimensional realities wouldn't know any of the others exist, the only way to see that would be from that 5th dimension. See it as a jar filled with water and several balls floating around, the water being the 5th dimension and the balls each a 4th dimension. What also always amazes me are the distances in the universe and how enormous these distances seem to us. But for an ant the distance from the North pole to the South pole would seem similarly enormous. It's all about scale and how things look from a certain perspective could be quite different when looked at from a different perspective.
@RUclips Member Time has been a dimension pretty much since Einstein's theory of relativity and Minkowski space-time. There are no dimensions in the universe? Really? So how come for instance the moon is a certain distance away from earth and has a certain size (being a spherical object)? Does a cube suddenly not become a cube when I put it somewhere in the universe? Up, down, left and right are always relative to the observer, even here on earth, they are never absolute. If you face north, left is to the west but if you face south, left is to the east. But I'd like some of what you've been smoking, it seems pretty strong stuff...😂
@RUclips Member Wauw, where to begin? At least you seem to have realized that objects in the universe do have a size and so dimensions (length, width and height) can be brought into the universe. Distance and "reachnes" (not sure what you mean by that) of an object depends on its location relative to the location of the observer. If that object is very very big the distance to it (its surface) is smaller than when that object is very tiny. So the scale of the object matters. Our eyes are limited in what they can see, both over large distances as well as in regard of the size of the object. That's why we use binoculairs, microscopes and telescopes to enlarge what we're trying to observe. Using telescopes has to do with travel as we're observing the light emitted or reflected by that object. Light travels at a certain speed and so the further the object is from us the longer it takes for that light to reach us (or the telescope we're using). that's why when looking at distant planets and stars we're basically looking into the past. By the time the light reaches us the planet or star may no longer exist. The size of an object has nothing to do with its life span, a photon is very very small but has a life span of one billion billion years. I hope this helps you understand things a bit better.
@RUclips Member Of course we had the notion of time before but it wasn't until Einstein and Minkowski that we started to see how we could use it in relation to the other 3 dimensions. That's why I refer to them, it's because of their theories that we started seeing time as a dimension instead of a simple occurrence like for instance wind or temperature. You may think my reaction is a naive but that really only says something about your (lack of) understanding of things.
@RUclips Member I do understand you (well mostly), I just don't agree. You mention you have over 20 years of knowledge, what kind of knowledge are you referring to? I mentioned wind and temperature because they are ways for us to describe a certain phenomenon, wind being the flow of air and temperature being the flow of heat, and allow us to measure them. Just like time is a way to describe the duration between two different events and allows us to measure that duration. Your argument that time doesn't exist because it isn't physical but something we've come up with to describe "duration" is like saying gravity doesn't exist because it isn't physical but something we've come up with to describe the attraction of mass. It would also mean that "speed" doesn't exist as this is the amount of distance covered in a certain time interval. The fact that time isn't something you can touch (like gravity) doesn't mean it isn't something with physical properties. Einstein already pointed out that time is a physical thing and can be influenced by a body of mass. That's why time passes more slowly close to a body with a lot of mass, like the earth. Experiments have proven this, a clock high on a mountain peak runs faster than that same clock at sea level. That is not due to our "feeling" of time but a measurable quantity. The main theory of our universe is that it started with a big bang 14 billion years ago and that it has been expanding ever since. Of course this is only a theory since there was nobody there to document this happening. And we don't know what was there, if anything, before the big bang. Since we can't look into the future there is no telling what will happen to our ever expanding universe. It might burst which might in turn cause another big bang. Or it might not. But during that time, as long as we humans are around, we can try to understand the universe around us. That means coming up with hypothesis, proving them so they become a theory and then doing experiments to prove those theories. And as our understanding grows we'll sometimes have to adapt our views when it becomes clear those views were wrong or incomplete. It is clear that you look at time from a philosophical point of view and I from a physical point of view. If I were to look at it from the philosophical point of view I'd agree that time doesn't exist as it is just a construct, like all other constructs we use to describe the world and universe around us. With that in mind I'd even go a step further and say that everything happens at the same time and at the same place but that our minds are just not (yet) capable of understanding that. Maybe one day we will. Quantum mechanics is already telling us that a particle can exist in more than one place at the same time and that is only our observation that puts it in a certain place. Our problem is that we are very limited in what we can observe and we need tools to be able to observe what we can't observe with our senses. But in order to make those tools we need to know what we want to observe and for that to happen we need to come up with hypothesis about what could be there to observe....😁 I'd like to leave it at that, have a nice one.
What happens if the James Webb discovers a galaxy which is much older than the universe, or at least, much older than the currently accepted age of the universe?
There is no age of the universe, the universe always existed and never began. Beginnings and endings are parameters we put onto time to help understand it. Time doesn't have to start or end in reality.
@@tonyvelasquez6776 Wrong, we cannot say one way or the other because we simply do not know. You are making as much if not more of a baseless assumption as the people who say the universe had a beginning.
We really know nothing about the universe. We've barely ventured outside of our own solar system with nearly 50 year old equipment. Everything we think we know are guesses at best.
You are right, we just scratching the surface. On top of it, a load of information is hidden. If you are interested to find more, I will recommend the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
These clouds of Hydrogen you speak of should have slowed the light passing through them, thus creating "tired light" which takes longer to reach us.. Is this taken into account when calculating the age of the universe? It also has to climb away from a denser universe where the galaxies were crowded together, creating a stronger gravitational field which should have redshifted their light.
The Hydrogen would have been a form of hot plasma, and a paper came out that light travels 25% faster through hot plasma against the "vacuum" of space.
So with such early galaxies they will be able to go back further than they expected? Even if these are relatively rare clearly there is still some very old large clumps of light going far back.
Yes. More than that, it looks like the theory of evolution of the universe might be completely wrong because there cannot be galaxies only 100 million years after the Big Bang unless there was no Big Bang.
@@maxxdahl6062 Thanks for commenting. I posted this comment several days ago on a different thread. How weird. It's true though. JWST observations regarding distant galaxies match YEC predictions and contradict secular ones.
Just pure speculation but could our idea of a "beginning" be limited to our bias, what if the "beginning" was just a phase change for the universe? Time and space becoming something meta as a byproduct of the process, along with our minds wanting things to make sense linearly and so we look for things that show evidence of continuity? Our minds are of the stuff this place is made of, so could we be limited in our capacity to understand where we are?
That is an actual theory. And yes, I recently began thinking about the big bang like that. There was no "beginning" where WOOP and from nothing came something, there was always something. We look at life from a birth and death bias, and we think everything must follow that, but it very easily could not.
Not sure where you are going with all this, but "what if the "beginning" was just a phase change for the universe?" is not an uncommon theory. Even though at that point we wouldn't necessarily be talking about a change of the universe, but something bigger.
It's a healthy speculation: how we view the universe shapes how we end up seeing it? At the quantum level there is a relationship between observer and observed, and the meaning of time is challenged, so it's perhaps comforting that similar doubts are raised when the microscope is changed to the telescope, so to speak.
@@Katatonya i never got nuthin from nuthin. done majik spells at emty boxes to make em full agen but got nuthin. ya dont get nuthin but nuthin from nuthin.
It’s like we stepped into a time machine, travelled back in time and witnessing stuff that was completely unexpected. It’s a good time to enjoy space and the universe.
I'm very interested to hear the results,suppose the universe is billions of years older than previously determined? Wow I believe that would shake up the community!? Thanks Anton I can hardly wait for your up date on whatever dates are going to be established,so exciting!!.
Astronomy is heavily reliant on many theories and optical measurements. It is fundamentally different from other scientific disciplines. We over-step our bounds when we claim that we know how the universe and many of its components formed. We may have to wait until we are a space fairing race before we can answer the big questions about our universe; but I feel that many will be eternally unanswered.
We possibly sit at an unique point in any time, where we can see for ourselves almost the earliest universe Meaning we have the privilege of being the intellectual and technological species at the time where we might just learn the most, presuming there where not many species before us. But you may be correct, we may never know and that is very exciting for me. Nothing like an unsolvable mystery to venture out in the stars and seek answers for
@m_train1 there is still the expansion issue. If the universe is infinite then it likely has an complex higher dimension shape to it, with the edges being consumed and fed back to a constant big bang.
Have faith in human intelligence my friend. We already know much more about the Universe than you can imagine! I will recommend you find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" You won't be disappointed!
If you measure this by redshift does it depend on how it's measured? I mean if something is moving is this accurate enough to be sure of the results you get? there is so much to the universe it's moving rotations etc I remember hearing something like this years ago that we got the age of the universe wrong and it was around actually double that
The estimate of the age of the universe is still pretty close to what it was 20 years ago. Now it is thought to be 13.77 billion years old. The next few months could yield some exciting information and discoveries.
i love the animation of what was going on behind your head as you were talking............. that was my physics class shrunk down to 10 seconds, what beautiful calculations someone came up with, loved it
How does this guy have time to do all of this research? The depth and breadth of Anton's knowledge is astonishing. I've learned a lot from this channel.
Anthropocentric thinking still rules the scientific community, it seems. The observable universe, beyond which expansion has overtaken the speed of light, does not equate to the date of formation of the universe. If you could at this instant be placed on a planet in the most distant observed galaxy, I predict you would look out to the edge and see the exact same thing we're seeing on this side of things. I suspect you could keep doing this for a googolplex raised to the power of a googolplex times, and the view would look exactly the same. Which is to say, we don't understand the sheer scale of how the universe works. We're stuck in our observable universe corner, and we'll never get the bigger picture. But in the meantime, I'll keep enjoying the pretty pictures from Webb.
...but we can see the cosmic microwave background... which definitely equates to the formation date of the universe. Nice fail. Should have gone to school instead of talking shit.
It's not anthropocentric so much as inflation-centric. The fact galaxies are moving away from each other is extrapolated backwards to mean they must once have been very close together, thus the universe must have been hotter and denser. I do agree though that we don't know enough to say many of the things we say with as much certainty as we say them. There are bound to be surprises.
Hope this telescope makes it another year so it can give us a new background. This video broke it down very well, and even touched on why I came: the proto galaxies. Good work and thanks for the update!
The nature is truly inventive in making even the greatest things simple. It build the time machine for you so you could see the whole universe past. It's as easy as looking out the window. Neat!
I need a video on the double slit experiment BUT not everything we have always heard, but how it’s applied to the light coming to us from 200m light years away from dead stars. I need to know how something can change its state literally moving back through time.
I just add a new chapter on this subject to my book. - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" Currently this is the only credible explanation of this fascinating phenomenon.
I can't fathom what will be learned with this telescope. All of these possible discoveries from an absolutely tiny part of the night sky. Incredible...
Man galaxies that exist within 150 million years is skin of the teeth close to the beginning! we either might have to push the start date of the universe back or we would have to contend with stars and galaxies forming in cosmically short time spans, like within 10 million years after hyperinflation having galactic cores and dying suns. Not saying unrealistic, just such a dramatic shift from hundreds of millions to just a few million years would seem jarring, I wonder if the density of the universe was just so much that a time dilation effect took place where processes we would assume would take tens of millions of years would take 10% of that time; but the densities would have to be uniform and incredible in weight, right?
The new shirt design featuring James Webb Telescope is sort of here! teespring.com/stores/whatdamath
As before, the proceeds are going to Save the Children focusing on the kids in Ukraine
So you look at a part of the sky described as small as a grain of sand find the furthest galaxy in that grain of sand price of sky and say. YEP!!!! That’s as far as the universe goes that’s how old it is please explain that to me? 😂 😆
why would seeing any new galaxies be a wow? wake me up when you found something new.....like actual life on other places.
Hello. What I don't understand is why they say that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old if what we see is just the observable Universe, the part that is not traveling FTL away from us. The Universe could be a lot bigger, and then a lot older. So why do they say that it formed 13.8 billion years ago, based on what?
And a second question is how could we even see galaxies 36 billion years far away, if they are so far away shouldn't they be outside the observable Universe? TIA
@@usuarioenyt The universe expands faster than the speed of light which is why its actual distance is 36 billion light years away.
It’s sort of, maybe, probably there.
Just imagine how wonderful space actually is, so many planets to see, so many solar system to visit, so many stars to compare! Wonderful.
The universe is infinite.
@@mattk8810 It isn't. Galaxies are moving away from a certain point in history, even Stephen Hawkings and Albert Einstein knew this.
@@vargero2568 That's currently the best theory. But it may not accommodate new data provided by the James Webb.
@@vargero2568 you got it all figured out. Lol
we Will find FTL unless . . .
Imagine a few photons from a galaxy, traveling 13.4 billion years, then by chance being gravitationally lensed along the way, to be detected by a telescope, then transmitted to a planet and then uploaded to a computer network where millions of wonderful sentient beings can see you on miniature screens.
Imagine also the fact that those sentient humans and their planet didn't even exist yet when those photons' journey began. Pretty insane!
but what if photons don't experience time?
lucky photons!!
@@shady6131 photons aren't sentient either.
yes, but actually real, not imagined
I have a feeling that in a few years we're either going realize that the universe is actually older than we thought, or were going to find out the beginning of the universe is a lot more different then we thought. To think this is only ONE of James Webbs missions, this telescope has potential to find life in our Universe too! This is the most exciting time for astronomy in a long long time
It's very likely JWST will give us answers to questions we haven't even thought to ask yet. Think of what we could do if they finally perfected nuclear fusion? Having that amount of power at our disposal could unlock our universe to us, or even potentially other universes too.
There has always been a lot of problems with the big bang theory. The "inflation"-phase and its temporary extreme speed. The baryon asymmetry, and so on.
It is very possible that the universe is a lot older than we assumed in modern times OR that its behaviour including all the constants changes a lot with time. IF the big bang really happened maybe the extremely hot phase which supposedly created the CMB happened way further back in time.
Can't wait for more!
Very exciting times indeed!
I doubt we'll ever find life.
Even bacteria.
El.blanco I agree -- great conjecture! But I feel as though the current consensus theory is already so contorted into a nearly self-reinforcing position that it will be very hard for scientists to break free of it. For example, if tomorrow we actually got an image of a galaxy that had sent light to us 100 billion years ago, our theories would deny that this is what happened.
@@spacebear916 not a lot of problems with the BBT. BB happened.
The discrepancy is when stars first began forming. And then when the first galaxies began to form.
so sorry to hear of your loss Anton. I can't imagine how painful that is. Youre doing an amazing thing for other children with this charity though. Good for you man.
Watching these discoveries feels like we are on the verge of something astounding any day now
yea man maybe alien FBI is gonna show up to our planet and say stop it now don't go too far and then we are gonna say fuck u alien fbi and start shooting and then they shoot back and pew pew pew and the first intergalactic war begins
It’s giving me an existential crisis.
I LOVE when scientists find something that makes them say, "wait, that's weird!" That's where new science knowledge is born! And I just watched Dr. Becky's coverage of these newest potential record-holders, so now I'm tickled to see your take on it, too!
Scientists made up dark matter. It does not exist. If you remove dark matter, the whole theory collapses.
It also makes scientific "facts" into jokes because old facts become fictions and all the people who threw those "facts" in the faces of opposition are now made fools. It's a waiting game as to when people will realize that everything we "know" is a matter of faith rather than concrete knowledge. We "know" nothing.
@@AudioGardenSlave123 You don't believe in science? Shocking!
@@mbukukanyau You said it so correctly by accident. You do "BELIEVE" in science? Not at all shocking.
Science is a method, not a collection of unassailable facts.
I remember growing up in the 80s and having exactly two books (that were actually my older sister's) on astronomy. One was the 9 planets of the solar system, with only ~1986 images of Pluto, and the other was a pretty general discussion of galaxies and stars. And not a word about planets around other stars, since we didn't know they existed yet - we suspected, but had not confirmed or (to our knowledge at the time) observed the signs of any.
And now there's today. Such a massive difference in 30 years!
Humans have known that there were other galaxies or "island universes" since the early 1900s, but the idea had been suspected much earlier. It was one of the ideas proposed to explain Charles Messier's list of objects, published in 1774.
By the 1970s and 80s, humanity knew how far away a lot of the brighter galaxies were. So this all happened in about 100 years, but the idea is more than 100 years older than that.
So, imagine living in a world where it was believed that earth was the centre of everything, that the lights in the sky were angel lights, and that those few crackpots out there who claimed this was all wrong could be tortured until they rejected their claims, then burned to death for daring say it. Not all that long ago.
I wonder what people will think of our ignorance today.
@@jameslatimer3600 Let's hope they will wonder.
So there were no partial books? Maybe a magazine article?
@@briebel2684 Got news for you.......... the ancient Greeks knew it too.
Great things are afoot in the world of astronomy! Perhaps the universe is older than 13.8 billion years? I never expected to see such huge stars, and galaxies, at such tremendous distances, and getting ever closer and closer to the beginning of the universe. The JWST is proving to be an astounding instrument of discovery! Thank you, Anton, for this amazing film.
Is Antons Child still dead?!
yes, now because its known gravity can effect time, if the universe was much closer to itself way back then, how would time act? i feel our current estimates are based on a constant that doesnt really exist
It is entirely possible the universe doesn't even have a beginning.
I believe that you are correct to believe that the Universe is older than 13.7by. A decade ago the Newzeland astronomers found a galaxy at a 15by distance. Unfortunately, their discovery was suppressed. The truth cannot be suppressed for long and more and more "controversy" discoveries will surface. If you don't want to wait longer, I will suggest finding the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@valentinmalinov8424 haha see archeology and lies the powerful colleges and eggheads protect at all costs
The way you explain things are way easy to understand than other youtube videos about space.
I genuinely envy the scientists and enthusiasts with the skills needed to analyze the James Webb telescope data, this must be the time of their lives, data that in the past wouldn't be easily accessible to the public is dumped in high resolution for anyone to sift thru and discover new exciting things, with so much new, never before seen data being available there's enough discoveries to go around
You shouldn't say you envy them. Just be grateful instead 🙏 😌
A galaxy at only 180 million years. That's remarkable!
What does the red shift have to be before even JWST cannot detect it?
Yeah, I was hoping Anton would say that when he mentioned Hubbles limit
@@unicorndelta6071 13.6 billion light years is what I could find.
@@unicorndelta6071 It operates colder than space, so if it gives off heat, it can see it, up to the size of a pixel in the image. Anything smaller than a pixel, and its going to be tough to tell if its just noise.
I found the following in a paper after some research
The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.
He said it in video, 50 million years for JWST
I told you so. JWST is going to break astrophysics and... This is where the fun begins!
Oh a real wise guy, a real Albert Einstein ain't ya buddy.
@@alexanderinsubordinate1861 No, I'm not. But we can only learn more when we discover what we are wrong about.
@@MCsCreations that is hefty presumption dear boy. I would suggest referencing the latest books on astrophysics, written by yours truly and can be found in the British library in kings cross London. I have several edition, I would bring a gardeners weal barrow if I were you, the weight and girth of 1 book along could render a men invalid for years of he was to lift unprepared.
@@alexanderinsubordinate1861 I'm am quite certain that it is possible to learn more when old facts are disproven. It's not a hefty presumption
@@alexanderinsubordinate1861 calm down buddy, you're not the next Einstein.
Great to see you back Anton. You have passion for the subject and a knack for explanation. Stay strong
I'm learning a lot about scientific thinking through Anton's stories - how fine and slow it is and how it keeps its respectability through the contributions of many teams of experts. It is most impressive.
@Brenton Carter I'm hoping the recent rain n drop in temperatures is going to lead to me enjoying the consumption of some Laetiporus sulphureus within a week.
I had a feeling it wouldn't take long for JWST observations to start challenging conventional thought of the evolution of the universe. That said, I didn't think it would start happening this early.
The challenge of the "dogma" never stops. If you are interested to find out some different facts I will recommend you find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
I know right...
It's been practically no time at all since Webb went completely online. Imagining what's to come is mind blowing 🤯
I would be interested in hearing a discussion of how many generations of stars it took to create the mix of elements found in the Milky Way. With all the hype on the data from one of JWT’s photos, it’s sounding like we’re in for lots theories trying to justify contradictory findings. JWT is going to be the source of lots of sleepless nights for likely generations of astronomers.
It's because evolution is false, lol. Creationist predicted this exact find before JWST was even sent out, including me.
Expect more, it won't stop.
Either they will invoke rapid evolution through some sort of "unknown" mechanism and or modify the age of the universe somehow. ;).
@@kinetic7609 Keep reading from the scriptures pal. As for the age of the universe, do you understand what a theory is and how science operates? I'm not anti-religion but people like you are backwards knuckle draggers.
WHAT A NONSENSE....?!?
Just because piece of paper (Degree). you the people in the west speak without any knowledge, what you are talking about is just lies without any real facts, you have not changed just like your ancestors who like to colonize, destroy nature, and also make up stories like parents who tell fairy tales to their children.
@@kinetic7609 I think both are wrong, evolution and creation. because it is a Ideas that has been seen by the human brain, we can create something like a table, chair, etc. & humans finally think, "if we can create a table, whatever it is, then this world could be created by something". Because Creation Was The Ideas That Already In The Mind Of Human, We Don't Know How The World Came To, Because We Don't Know What Ideas Are Out There.
@@Barthiee Except we have many proofs of evolution, none for creation.
JWST has just lifted the veil from the edge of the universe.
This really helps me understand the kinds of thing we can learn from JWST. Thanks, Anton!
Incredible but not unexpected that a tool made specifically to spot such distant objects actually is able to do so. It is still a remarkable find, and we can thank all the JWST team and everyone involved in it's design, creation and launch for this. The dark Ages goes as far as 1 billion years so we still have room to dig that far away, being able to spot a galaxy almost 1/3 to 1/2 into the dark ages in a few weeks of JWST life is crazy never the less.
when you say incredible, do you mean it is not credible? how, then, is it "not" "un" expected?
This guy could be living in the same dwelling as you, own a green tarp, a PC and a camera and yet be, imo, amongst the best journalistic oriented RUclipsrs when it comes to space. Also NEVER using "shocking" titles nor caps only in the titles, makes an audience feel respected 🙏
With a redshift of 20 or greater, we're talking about galaxies that are well into the Dark Ages period that shouldn't be visible at all. This means one of two things; 1) The presumption that there was, in fact, a "Dark Age" where neutral hydrogen blocked light from reaching out very far at the very beginnings of the universe didn't happen, thus upsetting our understanding of this period and how the cosmic microwave background radiation was created, or 2) our estimates of the age of the universe are way off. If it turns out that there is in fact a Galaxy at a v20 (or possibly others that are at an even greater redshift) then the age of the universe may not be at the (roughly) 14 billion years we think it to be. In fact, it could be far older.
Perhaps infinitely old?
So we can see more stuff we know much less about than ever before. This rabbit hole of space exploration/cosmology is getting deeper, longer, wider and more mysterious the more we find out about it. Fascinating.
@@antea9055 Maybe VERRRY old. Infinity is math only. Can't be physical. Some physicists avoid this error while others are confused.
@@antea9055 Infinite, no, indefinite possibly.
@@forjava Actually no.
The James Webb telescope truly is amazing, I could listen to updates what they found this time every day! Thank you Anton
Nevermind that.... It would be EXTREMELY unlikely that we found the first galaxy ever on day one. By zooming into a spot on the night sky the size of one tenth of your finger nail. There is quite a lot more to discover before we can say that.
Well yeah that much is obvious lol, but it was the farthest we seen at that time making it a record holder. People always misunderstand, new oldest found, and really being the oldest.
I don't think theyre randomly pointing it around mate.
God created it all.
Where did they all come from? Still no explanation.
@@dj-rocketman8545 where did god come from for that matter? Its the same question just transferred one level up. You can play that game infinitely, and what makes more sense is exactly that... There is not a need for a creator when the universe is recursive in, of, and on itself
@@gadkinson God always was he’s GOD…
Steve O is a patreon supporter haha thats so cool! Keep up the good work Anton!! Your work is very important!
It is good to see you smiling, Anton. I hope to see more of it. Thank you for, as you regularly do, sharing such fascinating information about who, and what we are, where we came from, where we are going, and some of what the rest of our universe did, is doing, and will do.
I was waiting for this analysis by Anton! As someone who was a lead engineer on JWST integration and test, I'm super excited to see these discoveries.
You were a lead engineer? If so that’s awesome.
@@youtubeconnollyfamily One of many lead engineers on the mechanical side (assembly), but I also led a tiny amount of electrical test (not the instruments). I worked the Sunshield.
@@External2737 that’s awesome man. Must be so cool to know that you were part of that telescope.I’m only 36 but I have four young children and one of them has a dream of working for NASA one day as a astronaut or a engineer. Luckily he loves math.
@@nicholaspirtlestudent539 Yes, with NGSS. I used to give tours of JWST (and Spacepark). Everyone contributed. With such a massive project, its tough for anyone to say what major thing they did until you were an sub-IPT lead (above me on JWST). Tons of hard work (I burned out).
Interesting. What do you make of these discoveries? Do you think they will find fully developed galaxies much further out? I personally think that astronomers will be forced to scrap their standard theories of the age and development of the universe. Time will tell.
If this is only a morning warm up for JWT , imagine in 10 years...
It seems like the overall trend is to push the clock back. Everything is older, and larger than we think at any time.
Well we can already see in radio so we know the end of the story.
I'm so sorry to hear about your loss Anton. My family and I pray that you will be able to get through these hard and trying times. Gob bless you all.
I’m so happy I found your channel Anton!!
Hi! Welcome! Anton is one of the best ! We are lucky! Enjoy!
All of this new info ... from ONE image ! What will we learn in the following months and years?.
Many thanks Anton, I look forward to your future updates.
Amazing. I'm obsessed with JWST discoveries. Thanks Anton
So, something I have wondered since my earliest astrophysics courses is whether or not we have a fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light. Namely, we make this assumption that the amplitude of a photon (measuring the wave aspect of course) will certainly reduce because of distance but that the frequency will stay constant as it propagates through space. This idea is what has driven us to this idea of dark energy, which frankly reeks of invisible purple dragon to me (if you know the metaphor). What if over extreme distance the frequency naturally elongates due to drag against the E/M medium in which the wave is propagating? That would mean that the longer the distance, the greater the red-shift. Combined with ACTUAL Doppler shift, that could appear like things are "accelerating." It would also match up with the directional-dependent observations of the Hubble Constant, and provide an explanation for these objects that appear to be way older than they should be.
In short, we ended up fabricating this idea of Dark Energy because we made an assumption about light that we cannot test (we would not possibly be able to model it in a laboratory), but a more reasonable explanation to help model this outlier objects is that we made the wrong assumptions. I have not worked that logic through with some of the standard candles, but there is probably a way forward with those arguments too.
Dude you have it! I wish I could talk to you because you actually are on the right track, I know the universe is actually young and this makes perfect sense.
@@seancurtis7359 How young? Also how do you know, and why haven't you shared this knowledge with the rest of us (And claimed a Nobel prize that would result for such a massive discovery?)
Actually, the universe is far larger and older than current theories assume. JWST has already given the keys to grasp this, and it has not done any long exposure deep stares into areas that appear to be empty space between the galaxies we can now see. Far older and larger than expected...
@@buddypage11 I have an acquaintance who believes this and has written a paper on it. It will be interesting to get his take on it.
Photon's frequency isn't affected by the medium. It's affected only by gravity, scattering, red/blue shifting or by space itself changing size - this is where the idea of dark energy comes from, backed up by Einstein's equations. It's a scientific hypothesis but it hasn't been invented out of thin air.
And what do you mean by "drag against the E/M medium" in the case of a massless, uncharged waveform? Electromagnetism doesn't affect it, distance doesn't affect it...so it either passes through or it doesn't and the photons caught by the telescope are those that passed through. Obviously.
since i was a teenager reading the scientific discoveries in astronomy i had always thought that the theories about the big bang and the age of the universe were only as good or as accurate as our ability to construct telescopes to view far into space . JWST is the scientists and astronomers dream instrument to date , bashing the theories and creating new data and it has only been operating for a few weeks , the future is bright and will be exciting for decades to come or until a better telescope is made that will surpass the JWST .
Thank you so much for sharing these new discoveries and simplifying them for the general public.
Despite the damages already inflicted on JWST, its discoveries are remarkable.
It's awesome to see peak technology after 30 years of specific development.
Can't wait to see what it will be able to discover within the next months and years.
Also thx Anton, if i hit 11pm on working days i'm always glad to see your upload within one hour later.
I really appreciate your content - be it space or crazy other science related stuff
the damage done is overstated. the JWT is testing how safe this orbit it for small stations and such, we didn't and don't know how safe it is from small impacts. we expected 1 hit a month, and we do see that, but there was 1 larger than any expected as well, still the original mission time is only a few years and this is totally expected and prepared for it to get damaged this way.
@@quinncampbell9255 True
Hubble was not without its issues after launch. All the delays helped to get it right the first time. It appears that it is already producing science justifying its existence even if it gets smashed to pieces to tomorrow by a space rock.
A photon torpedo will hit it just as it points itself at Trappist-1e.... ;]
@@Alondro77 it already has 5 hours looking at Trappist 1. It did it a few weeks ago.
Thank you so much for keeping us updated
Everytime I see clickbait articles about "a new earth", "groundbraking technologies", "proof of alien life" etc. I turn to Anton.
Thank you so much for teaching so much fascinating stuff without oversensationalizing!
Anton I am thankful for your time and efforts, I havent had time to watch for about a year now but you do such important work, thank you!
Intelligent life is out there somewhere, there's just no way Earth is the only place.
The universe is so vast the opportunity must be plentiful.
Can't wait to see stars and galaxies that existed before the big bang. That will be epic.
lol
That will be from the other universe
@@ubobu3613 Outstanding!
I predict we'll find that a lot of noise from the start of the universe actually are galaxies too.
And that will raise a lot of confused questions and make new science possible.
well if they push back the age of the universe, they will just push back the CMBR, which, like the black hole images, is bogus science. Many people like the channel Sky scholar, have pointed out all the flaws of the data. And a pier review said the only way to observe the data, is to place the equipment to map the CMBR, exactly where the James web is, in it's location in space. Which is why the james web is where it is in space, because the data would be otherwise false.
You know, darling - I love your knowledge and the way you're able to lay it out so that a relative layperson can understand it. But what I love most of all is your smile x
I wish you all the best and support through this loss. I will join those who support your call. Thanks for all your great videos!!
Thank you for all these JWST updates so far. Keep 'em coming!
Anton, you never disappoint! Let’s hope that humanity’s intellect and imagination can keep pace with the potential discoveries JWT will ultimately provide. Thank you.
ha, good luck with that. Our techology has surpassed our basic nature.
@@taroman7100 speak for yourself
Everything about Anton's presentation is amiable for my understanding of astronomy. Only "Cool Worlds" matches his intelligent sequencing of events, introductory information, emphasis on critical facts and recapitulating those developments that might be a challenge for citizen scientists to absorb or navigate. Great job, Anton--So glad you're here. For astronomy, this site and Cool Worlds are all I need.
If only news and reviews of evolutionary biology, paleontology and anthropology were as easy to gather . . .
Well, there is PBS Eons, which provides fairly good informations on aspects of the past.
Your so right. I love antons videos, so informative and helpful and hes such a wonderful person =), if your looking for paleontology I like Ezekiel at Raptor chatter channel. He does monthly reviews of new discoveries and updates so you might want to check him out ;),
Keep it up Anton. You've helped me so much through lockdown with your videos and continue to inspire my curiosity and Interest in astronomy. Thank you so much you absolute legend =)
lol. wtf is this? This feels like a bot account to viral market "Cool Worlds"
@@Chris-eh8mi Cool Worlds is a proper channel, which I have watched, too.
The bots don't go at such lengths to shill their products. Usually it is something like 'great video, btw this channel/website is good too (URL)' without *any* reference to the topic of the video to which this 'comment' had been sent.
@@Chris-eh8mi I'm not a bot, and I hope I don't write like one. Cool Worlds is one of the few science channels on RUclips actually produced by the top experts in a given field; most of the papers David Kipping references--usually on exoplanets--are papers he authored.
One thing leads to another. Guaranteed job prospect for you eh? Thank you Anton for explaining. 😎
Imagine what would happen if we confirmed an object beyond the age of the universe. That would really break modern theories!
Imagine learning it's all a Scam? Fake? Nothing you've ever been taught? Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary proof.
Respectfully intended, but its not possiblle. Why you ask ? Because we would then be required to adjust our models, as has been done throughout history. Science tells what it currently can test, prove repeat.. in light of new evidence that can hold to peer review new models are accepted and prior obes are modified or abandoned.. this is not in the discredit of science its the greatest thing about science, it accepts reality regardless. Science is a unified human endeavor towards truth .
People knew big bang is bs without Webb telescope
Thanks Anton! I really appreciate your work. So much to look forward to with this telescope.
What Anton is saying is, the Expanding Universe theory is proving to be difficult to justify.
Imagine being a photon from a distant galaxy, traveling 13.4 billion years, being gravitationally lenses to the perfect angle only to miss the telescope by an inch and just hitting the metal
Photon
What a bummer that would be. Brought a sack lunch, was gonna make a day of it, and missed the target. Poopie!
@@robj144 fuck me man I was sleep deprived lmao
i can imagine this being a cartoon.
The early universe was a chaotic place. The speed at which everything was expanding was incomprehensible. I believe it would have been easy for an early galaxy surrounded by all that matter to have began to clump and grow dramatically. Something that would take hundreds of millions to billions may have taken hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form.
I would think any life would grow very fast with all the energy that was out there. A race could have grown and been very powerful at the beginning
Anton's content is so good, you can come back and watch any video and learn something interesting and exciting, and still have fun doing so.
I watch every single video you create Anton. I can't watch your channel without a little touch of jealousy for the kids you teach if you are still doing that. I certainly never had a teacher with such an amazing mind, gentle nature, and since good faith desire to teach. I am retired, living on social security and military disability so I am contributing the maximum amount I can. I strongly encourage everyone to signup and contribute to your good works. Thank you again my friend.
Another great video, Anton! Keep 'em coming
Reminds me of the methuselah star, when it was first found it had an estimate age that was older than the age of the universe.
Later techniques and improved technologies pushed that estimate back down into more resonalable "Not quite as old as the universe"
I wonder if this result will hold in a few years?
When I first saw the Hubble Deep Field I knew something was wrong - too many galaxies too far back in time. Now this discovery seems to have confirmed my suspicion that the Big Bang theory was wrong.
I remember my Open University tutor (he was once the director of the Greenwich Observatory in Cambridge) asking us all in the tutorial who believed the Big Bang Theory. It was interesting that he asked.
Fred Hoyle invented the phrase 'Big Bang' to describe his opponents theory, his own being a sort of constantly forming universe, the so-called Steady State theory. Looks like Fred Hoyle might have been right all along! And I wonder if my tutor knew Fred Hoyle too.
I had a hunch that JWST discoveries would blow up our standard theories about the development of the universe. I predict that astronomers will be forced to scrap the Big Bang theory altogether. I believe they will discover fully developed galaxies all the way back to the theorized beginning of our universe and possibly beyond. If I understand correctly, JWST has only trained it's instruments at deep space for 24 hours? What happens when they instruct JWST to take a deep field picture that spans several days like the Hubble telescope did?
Nothing about this suggests that the BBT is wrong.
@@filonin2; stick around, JWST is just getting revved up.
I purchased one of your James Webb shirts.
I cannot ever thank you enough for these videos.
Excellent video Anton! Thank you so much :)
Mm u r cute
And mind boggling is it that we can already see to 50m light years after the creation of the universe. It’s beyond unbelievable.
Wonder how far out we can see into the universe’s expansion.
I guess the observable universe is larger now, or no?
That's a maybe. The data needs to be verified first before any conclusions are drawn.
Is there a reason why they're saying that only a few of the red shift 12+ galaxies exist? I mean this is one picture of an unimaginably tiny region of space and we just happened to chance on a potential record holder already?
Things that make you go humph
THIS IS WHAT WE ALL WANTED LETS FREAKING GOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Anton I just realized you are now over 1 million Subscribers! I remember when I subscribed to your channel when you only had 7k Subscribers. You have really come along way, and I am so happy you are getting the recognition you deserve. Bless you man.
My sort of question is still, if James Webb (like Hubble) can see so far away, what happens when you point it at an object much closer to us? An object like Andromeda or even a star that is "far away" but still in our own galaxy?? After all if you pointed this at Tabby's Star could you actually see what makes it so strange first hand and up close????
Another question I have to ask too, is it possible to see a "gravitationally lens-ed" galaxy that has already been "gravitationally lens-ed" by yet ANOTHER galaxy??? In other words what happens if you "accidently" find a galaxy that is behind another galaxy which is actually behind yet another galaxy??? I am not saying it is even possible, but when you consider "perspective" (like in photography) imagine an image of three children all standing in a "line of sight" where each child looks smaller than the next, with one child appearing to hold the other child and so on!!! It does make sense that you could potentially see well beyond the distance of the initial image if your "line of sight" is in an alignment that we don't even realize we are looking at!! And this may appear as an "optical illusion", like in my example above of three kids one holding another, holding another!!
Very much agree with your first point on viewing closer objects. Although JWT is obviously an amazing project, i cant help feeling a little disappointed (so far) that its not giving us much more detailed info on our systems nearest neighbours.
JWST did already make some images of Saturn. Don't worry there will be some more "closeup" pictures of nearby objects. Sadly they still won't be good enough to see for example the destroyed planets orbiting tabby's star. But you will certainly see some close rouge planet that is big enough to do some fusion ( brown giants).
@@johncritic-doe4504 also Jupiter
@@johncritic-doe4504 Don't get me wrong I am happy to see JWST looking at distant galaxies a few billion years ago, at the far reaches of space!! BUT it seems to me, that there are a lot of stars in our own galaxy we have never even looked at is all!! And I don't mean using Webb to look at Saturn, as much as, for example, looking at Proxima planets and taking a "close look at them"! Basically seeing what is in our "own neighborhood" is all!! It just seems like if you want to see something "really interesting" you don't point the telescope at a galaxy that was a million years old when the Big Bang Happened, as much as you would if you point that thing at something you could actually SEE up close and personal like!! We found a couple 1000 exo planets nearby and what happens when you point Webb at one of them??? That is my question, and I would find that pretty interesting is all!!!
@@brianfuller4071 Just go look at the mission schedule to see when it will be used to look at closer objects.
I like to imagine if James Webb looked in the deep field for 14 days rather than 12 hours, we would see evidence of a second big bang, as the asymmetry in our universe could of been the result of multiple expansions colliding into one another, or perhaps the energy readings of matter anti-matter collisions from a part of the universe consisting entirely of anti-matter.
I imagine it's scallar in function.
Caught me off guard with the theory of a second big bang.... exciting, thank you
We've come quite a long way: from thinking of ourselves as the center of universe to discovering ancient galaxy +30bi light year away..
You can not refute that the big bang hasnt happened at the place of the earth because it has no known location as far as I know
I like the way you show the actual real black and white photos they get before using cgi to show us what we get in the propaganda videos as renditions of what it would look like. Why do you think we only get photos that we've had already for decades but with updated cgi? Nebula never come in color either and is always a guess at what they would look like with color.
I consider Anton to be the most wonderful of all of the wonderful people ❤️
I always find it revealing how when we think we know things something comes up that makes us go "hang on a minute, that doesn't fit our understanding of things". It shows how limited we, and science, are by what we can detect. For instance, we can detect things in 4 dimensions; length, width, height and time. There could however be more dimensions that envelop our 4 dimensional reality. There could be a 5th dimension enveloping several 4-dimensional realities in which these 4-dimensional realities wouldn't know any of the others exist, the only way to see that would be from that 5th dimension. See it as a jar filled with water and several balls floating around, the water being the 5th dimension and the balls each a 4th dimension.
What also always amazes me are the distances in the universe and how enormous these distances seem to us. But for an ant the distance from the North pole to the South pole would seem similarly enormous. It's all about scale and how things look from a certain perspective could be quite different when looked at from a different perspective.
Time is not a dimension, at least not the way we perceive it. Time as we know it is a human construct driven by convenience
@RUclips Member Time has been a dimension pretty much since Einstein's theory of relativity and Minkowski space-time. There are no dimensions in the universe? Really? So how come for instance the moon is a certain distance away from earth and has a certain size (being a spherical object)? Does a cube suddenly not become a cube when I put it somewhere in the universe? Up, down, left and right are always relative to the observer, even here on earth, they are never absolute. If you face north, left is to the west but if you face south, left is to the east.
But I'd like some of what you've been smoking, it seems pretty strong stuff...😂
@RUclips Member Wauw, where to begin? At least you seem to have realized that objects in the universe do have a size and so dimensions (length, width and height) can be brought into the universe.
Distance and "reachnes" (not sure what you mean by that) of an object depends on its location relative to the location of the observer. If that object is very very big the distance to it (its surface) is smaller than when that object is very tiny. So the scale of the object matters. Our eyes are limited in what they can see, both over large distances as well as in regard of the size of the object. That's why we use binoculairs, microscopes and telescopes to enlarge what we're trying to observe. Using telescopes has to do with travel as we're observing the light emitted or reflected by that object. Light travels at a certain speed and so the further the object is from us the longer it takes for that light to reach us (or the telescope we're using). that's why when looking at distant planets and stars we're basically looking into the past. By the time the light reaches us the planet or star may no longer exist.
The size of an object has nothing to do with its life span, a photon is very very small but has a life span of one billion billion years.
I hope this helps you understand things a bit better.
@RUclips Member Of course we had the notion of time before but it wasn't until Einstein and Minkowski that we started to see how we could use it in relation to the other 3 dimensions. That's why I refer to them, it's because of their theories that we started seeing time as a dimension instead of a simple occurrence like for instance wind or temperature. You may think my reaction is a naive but that really only says something about your (lack of) understanding of things.
@RUclips Member I do understand you (well mostly), I just don't agree. You mention you have over 20 years of knowledge, what kind of knowledge are you referring to?
I mentioned wind and temperature because they are ways for us to describe a certain phenomenon, wind being the flow of air and temperature being the flow of heat, and allow us to measure them. Just like time is a way to describe the duration between two different events and allows us to measure that duration.
Your argument that time doesn't exist because it isn't physical but something we've come up with to describe "duration" is like saying gravity doesn't exist because it isn't physical but something we've come up with to describe the attraction of mass. It would also mean that "speed" doesn't exist as this is the amount of distance covered in a certain time interval.
The fact that time isn't something you can touch (like gravity) doesn't mean it isn't something with physical properties. Einstein already pointed out that time is a physical thing and can be influenced by a body of mass. That's why time passes more slowly close to a body with a lot of mass, like the earth. Experiments have proven this, a clock high on a mountain peak runs faster than that same clock at sea level. That is not due to our "feeling" of time but a measurable quantity.
The main theory of our universe is that it started with a big bang 14 billion years ago and that it has been expanding ever since. Of course this is only a theory since there was nobody there to document this happening. And we don't know what was there, if anything, before the big bang. Since we can't look into the future there is no telling what will happen to our ever expanding universe. It might burst which might in turn cause another big bang. Or it might not. But during that time, as long as we humans are around, we can try to understand the universe around us. That means coming up with hypothesis, proving them so they become a theory and then doing experiments to prove those theories. And as our understanding grows we'll sometimes have to adapt our views when it becomes clear those views were wrong or incomplete.
It is clear that you look at time from a philosophical point of view and I from a physical point of view. If I were to look at it from the philosophical point of view I'd agree that time doesn't exist as it is just a construct, like all other constructs we use to describe the world and universe around us. With that in mind I'd even go a step further and say that everything happens at the same time and at the same place but that our minds are just not (yet) capable of understanding that. Maybe one day we will. Quantum mechanics is already telling us that a particle can exist in more than one place at the same time and that is only our observation that puts it in a certain place. Our problem is that we are very limited in what we can observe and we need tools to be able to observe what we can't observe with our senses. But in order to make those tools we need to know what we want to observe and for that to happen we need to come up with hypothesis about what could be there to observe....😁
I'd like to leave it at that, have a nice one.
What happens if the James Webb discovers a galaxy which is much older than the universe, or at least, much older than the currently accepted age of the universe?
Same thing that happened the multiple other times we found a galaxy that is older than the currently accepted age of the universe.
There is no age of the universe, the universe always existed and never began. Beginnings and endings are parameters we put onto time to help understand it. Time doesn't have to start or end in reality.
@@tonyvelasquez6776 Wrong, we cannot say one way or the other because we simply do not know. You are making as much if not more of a baseless assumption as the people who say the universe had a beginning.
@@xenn4985 Yeah, 'we' can't, but I can, and it's my belief.
@@tonyvelasquez6776 Facts don't care about your feelings. Sorry not sorry.
We really know nothing about the universe. We've barely ventured outside of our own solar system with nearly 50 year old equipment. Everything we think we know are guesses at best.
You are right, we just scratching the surface. On top of it, a load of information is hidden. If you are interested to find more, I will recommend the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Where can one find beautiful 3d simulations of galaxy formations? They're hypnotic and fascinating!
We were all once the same hyper-particle and we even have photos of our cousins still lingering nice.
These clouds of Hydrogen you speak of should have slowed the light passing through them, thus creating "tired light" which takes longer to reach us.. Is this taken into account when calculating the age of the universe? It also has to climb away from a denser universe where the galaxies were crowded together, creating a stronger gravitational field which should have redshifted their light.
The Hydrogen would have been a form of hot plasma, and a paper came out that light travels 25% faster through hot plasma against the "vacuum" of space.
@@michaelstiller2282 Impossible for light to exceed 186,000 mps.
So with such early galaxies they will be able to go back further than they expected? Even if these are relatively rare clearly there is still some very old large clumps of light going far back.
Yes. More than that, it looks like the theory of evolution of the universe might be completely wrong because there cannot be galaxies only 100 million years after the Big Bang unless there was no Big Bang.
@@mpsmith35 as a young earth creationist, this is exactly what I expected they would find.
@@tonyabrown7796 lol
@@maxxdahl6062 Thanks for commenting. I posted this comment several days ago on a different thread. How weird.
It's true though. JWST observations regarding distant galaxies match YEC predictions and contradict secular ones.
@@tonyabrown7796 Rofl. Yeah. Sure.
Just pure speculation but could our idea of a "beginning" be limited to our bias, what if the "beginning" was just a phase change for the universe? Time and space becoming something meta as a byproduct of the process, along with our minds wanting things to make sense linearly and so we look for things that show evidence of continuity? Our minds are of the stuff this place is made of, so could we be limited in our capacity to understand where we are?
We all have a " beginning " at conception, and so are unable to grasp the idea of there not being a beginning for everything.
That is an actual theory. And yes, I recently began thinking about the big bang like that. There was no "beginning" where WOOP and from nothing came something, there was always something. We look at life from a birth and death bias, and we think everything must follow that, but it very easily could not.
Not sure where you are going with all this, but "what if the "beginning" was just a phase change for the universe?" is not an uncommon theory.
Even though at that point we wouldn't necessarily be talking about a change of the universe, but something bigger.
It's a healthy speculation: how we view the universe shapes how we end up seeing it?
At the quantum level there is a relationship between observer and observed, and the meaning of time is challenged, so it's perhaps comforting that similar doubts are raised when the microscope is changed to the telescope, so to speak.
@@Katatonya i never got nuthin from nuthin. done majik spells at emty boxes to make em full agen but got nuthin. ya dont get nuthin but nuthin from nuthin.
Excellent Reporting 👍
It’s like we stepped into a time machine, travelled back in time and witnessing stuff that was completely unexpected. It’s a good time to enjoy space and the universe.
I'm very interested to hear the results,suppose the universe is billions of years older than previously determined? Wow I believe that would shake up the community!? Thanks Anton I can hardly wait for your up date on whatever dates are going to be established,so exciting!!.
If we got the age of the universe wrong we might also have the end of the universe wrong .
@@kookamunga2458 we dont know how the universe will end nor will we ever
@@Myemnhk It will exist forever 😃😃
Prediction: There are going to be a lot of very old and very massive galaxies contradicting current theory
and it will be grand, we can get back to science and throw all the mathematicians and computer simulations into the trash.
You are not alone! Just find my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Astronomy is heavily reliant on many theories and optical measurements. It is fundamentally different from other scientific disciplines. We over-step our bounds when we claim that we know how the universe and many of its components formed. We may have to wait until we are a space fairing race before we can answer the big questions about our universe; but I feel that many will be eternally unanswered.
We possibly sit at an unique point in any time, where we can see for ourselves almost the earliest universe
Meaning we have the privilege of being the intellectual and technological species at the time where we might just learn the most, presuming there where not many species before us.
But you may be correct, we may never know and that is very exciting for me. Nothing like an unsolvable mystery to venture out in the stars and seek answers for
@m_train1 there is still the expansion issue.
If the universe is infinite then it likely has an complex higher dimension shape to it, with the edges being consumed and fed back to a constant big bang.
Have faith in human intelligence my friend. We already know much more about the Universe than you can imagine! I will recommend you find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" You won't be disappointed!
This is such an exciting time to be alive. We aren't even scratching the surface.
Hello Anton, this is wonderful person 🖖
If you measure this by redshift does it depend on how it's measured? I mean if something is moving is this accurate enough to be sure of the results you get? there is so much to the universe it's moving rotations etc I remember hearing something like this years ago that we got the age of the universe wrong and it was around actually double that
Expansion is by far the dominant motion at those redshifts.
The estimate of the age of the universe is still pretty close to what it was 20 years ago. Now it is thought to be 13.77 billion years old. The next few months could yield some exciting information and discoveries.
All hail JWST!
Hail hydra
I hope the recent meteoroid collision won't affect it substantially.
i love the animation of what was going on behind your head as you were talking............. that was my physics class shrunk down to 10 seconds, what beautiful calculations someone came up with, loved it
How does this guy have time to do all of this research? The depth and breadth of Anton's knowledge is astonishing. I've learned a lot from this channel.
Research? Do you understand that you need to provide references from legit online journals? Thus guy is s fraud
Anthropocentric thinking still rules the scientific community, it seems. The observable universe, beyond which expansion has overtaken the speed of light, does not equate to the date of formation of the universe. If you could at this instant be placed on a planet in the most distant observed galaxy, I predict you would look out to the edge and see the exact same thing we're seeing on this side of things. I suspect you could keep doing this for a googolplex raised to the power of a googolplex times, and the view would look exactly the same. Which is to say, we don't understand the sheer scale of how the universe works. We're stuck in our observable universe corner, and we'll never get the bigger picture. But in the meantime, I'll keep enjoying the pretty pictures from Webb.
...but we can see the cosmic microwave background... which definitely equates to the formation date of the universe. Nice fail. Should have gone to school instead of talking shit.
It's not anthropocentric so much as inflation-centric. The fact galaxies are moving away from each other is extrapolated backwards to mean they must once have been very close together, thus the universe must have been hotter and denser. I do agree though that we don't know enough to say many of the things we say with as much certainty as we say them. There are bound to be surprises.
Hope this telescope makes it another year so it can give us a new background. This video broke it down very well, and even touched on why I came: the proto galaxies. Good work and thanks for the update!
Thanks for the honesty assessing accuracy of interpreting these early observations.
This is exciting. Surely the astronomers were hoping that they would need to do a whole lot of re-thinking!
Anton .. you seem like such a nice guy .. thank you for the videos .. they are very informative .. and you are so darn smart !! 🤓❤
The nature is truly inventive in making even the greatest things simple. It build the time machine for you so you could see the whole universe past. It's as easy as looking out the window. Neat!
As Ever, Anton !
. . . We be so lucky to have you in our universe !
. . . . . . you should have billions and billions of subscribers ! B-)
I need a video on the double slit experiment BUT not everything we have always heard, but how it’s applied to the light coming to us from 200m light years away from dead stars.
I need to know how something can change its state literally moving back through time.
I just add a new chapter on this subject to my book. - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" Currently this is the only credible explanation of this fascinating phenomenon.
I can't fathom what will be learned with this telescope. All of these possible discoveries from an absolutely tiny part of the night sky. Incredible...
Man galaxies that exist within 150 million years is skin of the teeth close to the beginning! we either might have to push the start date of the universe back or we would have to contend with stars and galaxies forming in cosmically short time spans, like within 10 million years after hyperinflation having galactic cores and dying suns. Not saying unrealistic, just such a dramatic shift from hundreds of millions to just a few million years would seem jarring, I wonder if the density of the universe was just so much that a time dilation effect took place where processes we would assume would take tens of millions of years would take 10% of that time; but the densities would have to be uniform and incredible in weight, right?