JWST's Disconnect With Cosmology Models Linked to 'Bursty Star Formations' (spokesman.com) 18
Images from the James Webb Space Telescope "don't match scientists' models of how the universe formed," reports the Washington Post.
"But it might not be time to dump the standard model of cosmology yet. " A recent analysis in the Astrophysical Journal Letters suggests an explanation for the surprisingly massive-seeming galaxies: brilliant, extremely bright bursts of newborn stars.
The galaxies photographed by the telescope looked far too mature and large to have formed so fully so soon after the universe began, raising questions about scientists' assumptions of galaxy formation. But when researchers ran a variety of computer simulations of the universe's earliest days, they discovered that the galaxies probably are not as large as they seem. Instead, they attribute their brightness to a phenomenon called "bursty star formation." As clouds of dust and debris collapse, they form dense, high-temperature cores and become stars. Bursty galaxies spit out new stars in intermittent, bright bursts instead of creating stars more consistently. Usually, these galaxies are low in mass and take long breaks between starbursts.
Because the galaxies in question look so bright in photos produced by the Webb telescope, scientists at first thought they were older and more massive. But bursty systems with the ability to produce extremely bright, abundant light may appear more massive than they really are.
"Not only does this finding explain why young galaxies appear deceptively massive, it also fits within the standard model of cosmology," explains the announcement: In the new study, Guochao Sun, who led the study, Northwestern's, Claude-André Faucher-Giguère, the study's senior author, and their team used advanced computer simulations to model how galaxies formed right after the Big Bang. The simulations produced cosmic dawn galaxies that were just as bright as those observed by the JWST...
Although other astrophysicists have hypothesized that bursty star formation could be responsible for the unusual brightness of galaxies at cosmic dawn, the Northwestern researchers are the first to use detailed computer simulations to prove it is possible. And they were able to do so without adding new factors that are unaligned with our standard model of the universe.
"But it might not be time to dump the standard model of cosmology yet. " A recent analysis in the Astrophysical Journal Letters suggests an explanation for the surprisingly massive-seeming galaxies: brilliant, extremely bright bursts of newborn stars.
The galaxies photographed by the telescope looked far too mature and large to have formed so fully so soon after the universe began, raising questions about scientists' assumptions of galaxy formation. But when researchers ran a variety of computer simulations of the universe's earliest days, they discovered that the galaxies probably are not as large as they seem. Instead, they attribute their brightness to a phenomenon called "bursty star formation." As clouds of dust and debris collapse, they form dense, high-temperature cores and become stars. Bursty galaxies spit out new stars in intermittent, bright bursts instead of creating stars more consistently. Usually, these galaxies are low in mass and take long breaks between starbursts.
Because the galaxies in question look so bright in photos produced by the Webb telescope, scientists at first thought they were older and more massive. But bursty systems with the ability to produce extremely bright, abundant light may appear more massive than they really are.
"Not only does this finding explain why young galaxies appear deceptively massive, it also fits within the standard model of cosmology," explains the announcement: In the new study, Guochao Sun, who led the study, Northwestern's, Claude-André Faucher-Giguère, the study's senior author, and their team used advanced computer simulations to model how galaxies formed right after the Big Bang. The simulations produced cosmic dawn galaxies that were just as bright as those observed by the JWST...
Although other astrophysicists have hypothesized that bursty star formation could be responsible for the unusual brightness of galaxies at cosmic dawn, the Northwestern researchers are the first to use detailed computer simulations to prove it is possible. And they were able to do so without adding new factors that are unaligned with our standard model of the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody Ptolemy you might say something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice to meet you, Copernicus Anonymous. What's the link to your arxiv author page?
turtle doctrine (Score:2)
It shall be as the great turtle commands
Sure. (Score:1, Redundant)
I always go to Washington Post and Neil deGrasse Tyson to top up my astronomy knowledge...
Re: (Score:1)
It's weird that in 2023 /. still favors legacy media over demonstrated competent sources.
For example, on this topic Anton Petrov does a great job accurately communicating new ideas like this and WaPo never does, yet /. would never link to a YT video even though the legacy media has been all but abandoned.
There's another article on here today about how legacy media only survives by big-tech links. The competitive channels space gets none of that artificial advantage so they have to do a good job.
Imagine how
Re: Sure. (Score:2)
Youâ(TM)re right that Anton Petrov does a good job of communicating the ideas, but at the same time, he is terrible at getting you interested in. Heâ(TM)s just *so* monotone. He also has a habit of looking rather non-critically at research. Heâ(TM)ll commonly report on a paper and not highlight anything really questionable about it, while someone like Dr Becky will call out all the weaknesses as well as the positives. Iâ(TM)m confident that both will do a video on this topic though, a
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, she hasn't done this one yet. Day job, I suppose.
So, next step, Arxiv. And here we go ... [arxiv.org], "Bursty Star Formation Naturally Explains the Abundance of Bright Galaxies at Cosmic Dawn", and ... well, yes, the paper is indeed about "bursty" star formation being a possible reso
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sure. (Score:5, Informative)
I always go to Washington Post and Neil deGrasse Tyson to top up my astronomy knowledge...
The Washington Post is reporting on a letter in Astrophysical Journal Letters - why do you consider that problematic?
And regarding Tyson... I'm not the guy's biggest fan, especially his frequent pontification on topics away from his area of expertise. However the dude is an astrophysicist, so this is his area of expertise. Regardless, he's not in the center of this story - so it's unclear why you chose to call him out.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I see no DOI, either in the article or the summary, you know, that little string of letters and numbers that actually identifies the alleged source of the reporting. Dunno why, but always missing in the "pop-sci" rain of shit that never stops.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd - I can see two. And a couple of non-DOI links.
Have you somehow (or some-why) managed to disable the browser feature that pops-up the content of a link when you hover over it (or tab to it, depending on your choice of navigation technique)?
Startburst, taste the rainbow (Score:1)
Tests before results.. (Score:2)
The fact they developed these conforming models AFTER they got the JWST data tells you all you need to know... fitting the model to the data.
A solid model predicts what the data will look like BEFORE the collection of data confirms it. They are doing it backwards to preserve current orthodoxy.
Re: (Score:1)
It's also perfectly normal science to
1 Observe something we didn't expect
2 Try to explain it.
3 Look for extras from the explanation to go and test.
This is stage 2.
We observed the perihelion advance of mercury before general relativity, but nonetheless it was a good test of GR. Hell, we observed celestial motion and objects falling down before newtonian gravity, but elliptic orbits were still a test of that idea.
Obligatory Sticker (Score:2)
Warning: Galaxies viewed in the JWST mirror may appear larger than they actually are.