I always come to watch this guy’s videos, I remember being so young and watching him explain everything nook and cranny about space. Huge respect to Anton Petrov
A part of it is caused by the fact that really far away galaxies actually appear closer to us because their light was emitted when they were closer to us. At a certain redshift I think 1.5 galaxies start to appear bigger the further away they are instead of smaller
@@InstantLightningthat’s not true. The further away things are the smaller they appear (as long as there is no gravitational lensing), because that mathematical arch principle of proportionality doesn’t change.
At a resolution of 0.01 arcseconds one pixel in 13 billion lightyears distance represents a size of 13.000.000.000 / (90 x 360.000) lightyears which is about 400 lightyears.
It's pretty cool how much new information we're getting because of JWST. I sometimes fantasize about going back in time to 1982 and telling people about it.
Whoa! I was just staring at the sky admiring the stars and this one star began growing super super bright, brighter than any other star, then it gradually dimmed back down to barely visible! Ive never seen a star do that, and with just my own eyes, I suspect we will hear something about it soon could you keep an eye out. It was definitely unique phenomenon. Only lasted for like 10 maybe 15 seconds, but was extremely bright and significantly larger then any other star. Blew my mind, I had to come here and tell you. Havent even seen this video yet.
Could well be a flat bit on a satellite. I've seen this a few times and managed to get my zoom scope onto one as it got brighter. IMO it was the same shape as a solar panel through the lens. The oblong changed into a parallelogram as the bright reflection of the sun rotated away from view. Wish I'd had a camera on the scope that night!
@@InsertHandleHere968 ISS is easy(ish) to image with surprisingly cheap kit, if you do your homework to figure out when and where it will be. I just picked up a decent small scope and an older large sensor camera with no lenses for £50 at a "yard sale". Now to wait for some decent clear sky at the right time in London...
Peew every time i see the words "JWST" and "break" in the same sentence my heart skips a beat, but thank god its always just the laws of physics that's referred to😁
Those early galaxies being different from we thought could suggest low metallicity playing a role, but there're the dust and the oxygen. Maybe we need to revisit dark matter's decoupling from baryonic matter? Perhaps dark energies very early history? We should feel lucky to be here when those types of questions can be asked for the time. Keep up the wonderfulness, Anton.
Evidence denied and dismissed or omitted is only questions of a healthy skepticism. Especially quantum gravity and string theory that is like a untestable replicator of virtual unicorns if that would answer any question. Luckily skepticism include sarcasm to reinforce its reasons to be more skeptical.
Thanks for the video, but there is more than ONE mystery left behind here. Something that seems to stand is not standing yet. It's a bit arrogant to assume any computer simulations of post big bang have any reasonable degree of accuracy at this stage. How did this computer model miss the accretion disk brightness delta? If it missed this, what else did it miss? oh, the oxygen generation.. missed that! oh... some other property we don't understand. missed that... Yet straight to the defense of the old science, they go :)
Didn't listen, did you? If you have supernovae then you will have oxygen. And if you want the details, I suggest reading the papers. Or are they too technical for you?
@@davejones7632 ignorant response unrelated to my point that the super-duper cosmic models missed this. Pay attention. There is a theory that oxygen can only be created by supernovae. You aren't too creative, are you? I suggest you use critical thinking , though that might be too difficult for you, you insulting bag of wind.
As a novice astronomy buff it would seem like the universe of 400 - 700 million years of age would be an extremely dense matter environment as compared to what we're living now, so how could it be just a little denser than today environment since it's now over 13 billion years later and space has expanded exponentially in time since then?
The CMB map is a photograph of the universe 130,000 years after the big bang. The furthest galaxy we observe is 300 million years after the big bang. It is a mature galaxy that is tied to the cosmic web. The CMB is observed in microwaves as the electromagnetic spectrum stretched, the light stretched. Due to the expanding universe. The red shift of the CMB is like z1,130 the galaxy is a red shift of z20. So somehow in 2,991,000 years the light stretched down to microwave. And over the next 14, billion years the light didn't stretch it just red shifted. Doesn't make sense for me.
"Although the exact duration of the “Inflationary Period” is still unknown, scientists often use 10-33 Seconds as one of the typical examples. This length of time is so short, more of them can fit in one second than the number of seconds since the Big Bang." After inflation period it probably was more similar to the current universe, of course still a bit more dense as the universe haven't stopped expanding. but most of the expansion happended just after then big bang, or so I understand it.
@@michaelstiller2282The redshift is a measure of how much the universe has expanded since the light was emitted. The higher redshift of the CMB indicates it comes from a time when the universe was much smaller and denser compared to the time when GLASS-z12’s light was emitted.
@richardlong: Space has not expanded "exponentially". Please read up on what this word actually means. An exponential expansion only happened during inflation, in the very first tiny fractions of a second. Additionally, the _mean_ density back then was about 1000 times higher than today. But obviously, "mean" does in no way imply that the density _everywhere_ was higher by such a huge factor.
Phew! The galactic accountants can keep their jobs! I thought that they were going to be fired for time-space mass-energy mismanagement of ancient galaxies.
Thanks Anton another great video, I would love to see how much of this is still considered correct in fifty years time ? , unfortunately that will be left to the next generation. Have a wonderful day everyone, PEACE AND LOVE TO EVERYONE ❤❤.
So instead of saying the universe is older than previously thought they’re saying that galaxies formed faster in the early universe for some reason. Ok then.
Hello Anton! I'm currently in final year of high school and really interested in all this stuff, I was wondering how the gases made a lot of heat due to friction? How does that work? Are the gases pulled together really hard by the blackhole and the gases spin really fast to create heat due to friction or is it something else?
Mainly friction. As gas clouds collapsed under their own gravity, they converted potential energy into kinetic energy, increasing their temperature through adiabatic compression. Additionally, friction, or viscous dissipation, played a significant role in heating these gases. In accretion disks around black holes, gas particles experienced shear forces, leading to intense heating and high-energy radiation emissions. Shock waves from colliding gas clouds and radiative processes also contributed to the thermal energy of the gas. For instance, forming galaxies and proto-galaxies experienced heating through gravitational collapse, shocks, and star formation. The infall of gas and high rates of accretion around supermassive black holes formed accretion disks, making quasars some of the most luminous objects in the universe. Overall, these processes converted kinetic and potential energy into thermal energy, raising the temperature of gases significantly in the early universe. 🌌✨
If a cosmologist says they have solved a mystery then it is easy to see if they have. If there are as many new questions raised as answers given then it bears the hallmark of science. A gross generalisation, I know, but there is more than a bit of truth in there! Cheers Anton, voice of reason, quietly countering the clickbait!
Given that the total mass and energy of the universe is the same now as it was in the beginning, but only in a much smaller volume of space/time, why wouldn't the early universe be filled quickly with massive stars and galaxies?
Some scientist think the Higgs field could be in a metastable state right now. Maybe at the beginning of the universe, when everything was much closer together, the universe was also in a metastable condition, which allowed for the rapid formation of stars due to slightly different physics. But once we started expanding, stability shifted to our current condition. There's probably no way to prove this, so there's no reason to believe it, but it does sound like a fun theory
From an energy-scale perspective, high-energy physics experiments cannot replicate the conditions a few microseconds after the Big Bang, but the energy scales involved 100 million years later are easily achievable. I am not discounting some relaxation that has not been considered before but I don't think we need to jump to big conclusions just yet.
So, this evidence for rapid star formation with intense concentrations in early galaxies is perhaps a precursor for the development of the first galactic core black holes?
It still seems hard to understand how these galaxies formed so quickly. So much energy has to come from somewhere. 300 million years is not much time for gravity to create giant stars out of moving gas.
Big Bang. Expansion. Firewall. Transparency. Due to density differentials, the quark-gluon stew had already initiated star formation before the 380,000 year firewall had even been breached, although it wouldn't yet be called 'star formation. Light only then started crossing the universe, but the universe at that time was only .00275% the total age and size of the current universe. Mind blown.
What if the Bing Bang took place in an Universe that was already there?!? I don't think we could figure it out. Maybe the Universe is infinite and from place to place there are massive explosions that create matter.
Q; If the furthest galaxies were possibly slowing down, would that newer dissipated light catch up to older light generated by them that travels in a faster expanding universe , thereby increasing the brightness ? Is that possible in this universe ?
If you can get a 360 map of the galaxies at that distance you might be able to determine if it’s local. Until then it’s just shoehorning explanations into the black hole theory.
hubble time, or the inverse of the hubble constant, ages the universe at 14.4 Gyr (without correction), the star generations forming 300 million years after the big bang may indicate towards an older universe
You can still make the change. I'm 37, and I'm working on an astrophysics PhD. Non-zero chance I don't end up getting it, but I'm still trying! I say give it a shot!
@@douglaswilkinson5700 Weird, I thought I'd replied... But ha! Yeah, I know. That's why my plan is to keep working in tech, fully remote, to maintain myself. That way I can travel where I need to as well!
I would expect the extremely early universe to be bright. I believe the extremely early universe(maybe 1-100 years) was noisy and very bright. Before the expansion, gravity doesn't exist. So gravity is shallow and wide causing gases to accumulates quickly, the friction of this motion makes fission easy at the high temperatures. Stars form fast. They gorge, and their lifespans are shortened, because of it - lots of supernovae, collisions, black holes, then quasars etc. Matter perpetually being energized, changing, but, as space-time expands, energy has more chance to cool, reactions have a chance to stabilize and the effects of gravity are less consequential and more local, in the larger space. That's how I imagine it, anyway.
Explain please Anton. The "Big Bang" took please approx 13.2 Billion years ago and according to the JWST info this Galaxy JADES-GS-z14-0 was formed about 300 million years later. How can a Galaxy over the period of appr 300 Million years form to that size and also be so complete. Thanks
What I find confusing is that early black holes were huge and yet they didnt consume all the matter, and indeed there is more matter now. How did it escape the black holes. The information must leak and its wuantum pair firms an atom.
Black holes are not vacuum cleaner, they don't suck in stuff from far away. So there is no reason at all to think that they should have consumed all the matter.
Okay jeez. If there were already so many 3rd gen stars THAT early, then the idea that humans potentially exist as intelligent life early as possible is no longer true.
These arent silly big black holes, they are blackholes aligned towards us. That is, bh release light in a polarized way. These bh arent aligned on the glactic plane its "random" how they are oriented. We are just in the right way of these flashlight bh. Btw the orentation is "top/bottom" bh emit the mostlight in these directions. That is perpendicular to the accretion disk.
Earth 4B yrs old…. Space 13B yrs old…… we are young upstarts and have no idea whose yard we are playing in. Anton, if Earth really is 4B yrs old, is that because of the impact we sustained with the other planet? Theia(?) meaning, whatever we were before Theia&Earth made friends, this original planet cruised around for 9B solo, bam, Theia, boom Earth and the Moon, water, life….
@@davejones7632 Nobody can. "Big Bang" is just 1 theory out millions and millions possibilitys. Bro we barely know whats at the bottom of our ocean. We have no freaking idea how it all started, how it works and where its going. Its just guessing 🙂
big bang is a Parallax phenomena, i tend to believe in the steady state theory. things do evolve, but we don't have near that scale of time, think more hologram and multi dimensional.
Surely if Anton had been human and not an AI, he would occassionally have to look over the shoulder just to make sure that no black hole is about to suck him in, or a big bang about to explode behind his back.
But if everything homogenous, no ambient space and no friction the universe expanding is interacting with, then there wouldn't be a change in efficiency of star formation?
I do not understand why the universe was only a little bit denser than it is today in the earliest epoch. Depending on how far back you look, I would expect the universe to be dozens or even thousands of times denser.
I mean, "little bit" is subjective, but you are right. The mean density of matter in the universe is proportional to the scale factor cubed, so at a redshift of 14 for example, like that of some of these early galaxies, the scale factor is a = 1/(1+z) = 1/15, so matter would be 15^3 = 3375 times as dense. But that takes you from ~1 atom per cubic meter today to a few thousand, which is still hundreds of thousands of times better than the best vacuum achieved on Earth.
Lo unico que se puede afirmar es que en esas galaxias lejanas vemos el universo como era hace 13500 millones de años, independientemente del modelo cosmológico que utilicemos, y no significa que el Big Bang lo explique mejor que otros modelos
@@ahmadpcgaming Universo fractal, alli el universo comenzaría también desde un punto formando estructuras fractales, comienzo indefinido hacia atras en el tiempo, la expansión métrica de FLRW no aplicaría. Vease autores Pietronero, Carabio, etc, ETC
I always come to watch this guy’s videos, I remember being so young and watching him explain everything nook and cranny about space. Huge respect to Anton Petrov
So glad your channel exists. You come with legit information and explain things. Unlike the mass amount of click bait jwst videos. Which say nothing.
850 light years across, thats a couple light years per pixel. I'm constantly impressed with how powerful JWST is and it's resolution
Even weirder to think that the entire 850 light years wouldn't even cover a whole light-sensing cell in your eye
Really really impressive
A part of it is caused by the fact that really far away galaxies actually appear closer to us because their light was emitted when they were closer to us. At a certain redshift I think 1.5 galaxies start to appear bigger the further away they are instead of smaller
@@InstantLightningthat’s not true. The further away things are the smaller they appear (as long as there is no gravitational lensing), because that mathematical arch principle of proportionality doesn’t change.
At a resolution of 0.01 arcseconds one pixel in 13 billion lightyears distance represents a size of 13.000.000.000 / (90 x 360.000) lightyears which is about 400 lightyears.
It's pretty cool how much new information we're getting because of JWST. I sometimes fantasize about going back in time to 1982 and telling people about it.
Everyone knows you can go back to 1965. But they wouldn't be ready for it yet.
We should make one 10 x bigger!
JWST is a joke.
@@derrickmcadoo3804 Huh? Why?
Whoa! I was just staring at the sky admiring the stars and this one star began growing super super bright, brighter than any other star, then it gradually dimmed back down to barely visible! Ive never seen a star do that, and with just my own eyes, I suspect we will hear something about it soon could you keep an eye out. It was definitely unique phenomenon. Only lasted for like 10 maybe 15 seconds, but was extremely bright and significantly larger then any other star. Blew my mind, I had to come here and tell you. Havent even seen this video yet.
I've seen several.
Could well be a flat bit on a satellite. I've seen this a few times and managed to get my zoom scope onto one as it got brighter. IMO it was the same shape as a solar panel through the lens. The oblong changed into a parallelogram as the bright reflection of the sun rotated away from view. Wish I'd had a camera on the scope that night!
The space station does that too! I saw the same thing and it turned out it was the space station 😊
@@InsertHandleHere968 ISS is easy(ish) to image with surprisingly cheap kit, if you do your homework to figure out when and where it will be. I just picked up a decent small scope and an older large sensor camera with no lenses for £50 at a "yard sale". Now to wait for some decent clear sky at the right time in London...
Something odd appears on data:
- Cosmologists: crisis.
- Economists: I choose to believe on the one that I like the most.
I would think they see it more as opportunity rather than crisis 🙂
- All scientists: I choose to believe on the one that I like the most.
@@196cupcakeAll humans: I choose to believe the one I like the most (accounting for different definitions of “right” and varying standards of proof).
I choose to believe in the one that seems most plausible no matter what my preconceptions are.
It was aliens.
Hey Anton. Did you know that your channel is featured on the " Microsoft Edge News" Homepage. With your thumbnails and photo !!
Peew every time i see the words "JWST" and "break" in the same sentence my heart skips a beat, but thank god its always just the laws of physics that's referred to😁
Thanks for another informative video. I always learn something.
Those early galaxies being different from we thought could suggest low metallicity playing a role, but there're the dust and the oxygen.
Maybe we need to revisit dark matter's decoupling from baryonic matter? Perhaps dark energies very early history?
We should feel lucky to be here when those types of questions can be asked for the time.
Keep up the wonderfulness, Anton.
I just wonder if they are closer than we think they are, but something else red shifted them more, to match the distance calculation?
This is how science progresses. Facing new evidence, we question our assumptions. If needed we change them. But generally we understand more and more.
Noone listens to my new evidence. Im beginning to learn just how awful much of academia is, they care only about preserving their jobs.
How do you get a 5 hour old comment on a 3 minute old video?
Shenanigans
@@theherald3117 they probably released the video as link only at first and then published later?
@@theherald3117 Membership. Early access is one of the perks.
Evidence denied and dismissed or omitted is only questions of a healthy skepticism. Especially quantum gravity and string theory that is like a untestable replicator of virtual unicorns if that would answer any question. Luckily skepticism include sarcasm to reinforce its reasons to be more skeptical.
Thanks for the video, but there is more than ONE mystery left behind here. Something that seems to stand is not standing yet. It's a bit arrogant to assume any computer simulations of post big bang have any reasonable degree of accuracy at this stage. How did this computer model miss the accretion disk brightness delta? If it missed this, what else did it miss? oh, the oxygen generation.. missed that! oh... some other property we don't understand. missed that... Yet straight to the defense of the old science, they go :)
Didn't listen, did you? If you have supernovae then you will have oxygen. And if you want the details, I suggest reading the papers. Or are they too technical for you?
@@davejones7632 ignorant response unrelated to my point that the super-duper cosmic models missed this. Pay attention. There is a theory that oxygen can only be created by supernovae. You aren't too creative, are you? I suggest you use critical thinking , though that might be too difficult for you, you insulting bag of wind.
I'm finally getting over the anger from jws delay, it's amazing
As a novice astronomy buff it would seem like the universe of 400 - 700 million years of age would be an extremely dense matter environment as compared to what we're living now, so how could it be just a little denser than today environment since it's now over 13 billion years later and space has expanded exponentially in time since then?
it's mentioned, yes. :P
The CMB map is a photograph of the universe 130,000 years after the big bang. The furthest galaxy we observe is 300 million years after the big bang. It is a mature galaxy that is tied to the cosmic web. The CMB is observed in microwaves as the electromagnetic spectrum stretched, the light stretched. Due to the expanding universe. The red shift of the CMB is like z1,130 the galaxy is a red shift of z20. So somehow in 2,991,000 years the light stretched down to microwave. And over the next 14, billion years the light didn't stretch it just red shifted. Doesn't make sense for me.
"Although the exact duration of the “Inflationary Period” is still unknown, scientists often use 10-33 Seconds as one of the typical examples. This length of time is so short, more of them can fit in one second than the number of seconds since the Big Bang." After inflation period it probably was more similar to the current universe, of course still a bit more dense as the universe haven't stopped expanding. but most of the expansion happended just after then big bang, or so I understand it.
@@michaelstiller2282The redshift is a measure of how much the universe has expanded since the light was emitted. The higher redshift of the CMB indicates it comes from a time when the universe was much smaller and denser compared to the time when GLASS-z12’s light was emitted.
@richardlong: Space has not expanded "exponentially". Please read up on what this word actually means. An exponential expansion only happened during inflation, in the very first tiny fractions of a second.
Additionally, the _mean_ density back then was about 1000 times higher than today. But obviously, "mean" does in no way imply that the density _everywhere_ was higher by such a huge factor.
Very interesting. Thank you Anton ✋
Phew! The galactic accountants can keep their jobs! I thought that they were going to be fired for time-space mass-energy mismanagement of ancient galaxies.
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 🫡🙂✌️
Thanks!
Thanks Anton another great video, I would love to see how much of this is still considered correct in fifty years time ? , unfortunately that will be left to the next generation. Have a wonderful day everyone, PEACE AND LOVE TO EVERYONE ❤❤.
Interesting to know about this, thanks👍💜
Well this is a big relief
makes sense. things where closer and denser then.
For a sec there I thought there was going to be a Mambo #5 JWST-edition thing going on with the intro.
People are complaining about bot comments but I'm not seeing them. I see people grateful for your vid.
Beep boop bop!
Because people like us report them as spam, hating to see our favourite creator's comment section cluttered with pornobots.
The "people" complaining are bots too, just trying to derail from our wonderful Anton
You are the bot. You don't fool anyone.
So instead of saying the universe is older than previously thought they’re saying that galaxies formed faster in the early universe for some reason. Ok then.
Because there is zero evidence for the universe being older, and no valid models for how that would be so.
Hello Anton! I'm currently in final year of high school and really interested in all this stuff, I was wondering how the gases made a lot of heat due to friction? How does that work? Are the gases pulled together really hard by the blackhole and the gases spin really fast to create heat due to friction or is it something else?
Mainly friction. As gas clouds collapsed under their own gravity, they converted potential energy into kinetic energy, increasing their temperature through adiabatic compression. Additionally, friction, or viscous dissipation, played a significant role in heating these gases. In accretion disks around black holes, gas particles experienced shear forces, leading to intense heating and high-energy radiation emissions.
Shock waves from colliding gas clouds and radiative processes also contributed to the thermal energy of the gas. For instance, forming galaxies and proto-galaxies experienced heating through gravitational collapse, shocks, and star formation. The infall of gas and high rates of accretion around supermassive black holes formed accretion disks, making quasars some of the most luminous objects in the universe.
Overall, these processes converted kinetic and potential energy into thermal energy, raising the temperature of gases significantly in the early universe. 🌌✨
@InsertHandleHere968 thank you so much for taking out your time to reply, that's awesome
The more we see, the more we understand, that we DON’T understand👨🏿⚕️🤓keep searching🔭👏🏿👏🏿🦠💉😷
Thanks for this one.
If a cosmologist says they have solved a mystery then it is easy to see if they have. If there are as many new questions raised as answers given then it bears the hallmark of science. A gross generalisation, I know, but there is more than a bit of truth in there! Cheers Anton, voice of reason, quietly countering the clickbait!
Given that the total mass and energy of the universe is the same now as it was in the beginning, but only in a much smaller volume of space/time, why wouldn't the early universe be filled quickly with massive stars and galaxies?
Because it takes time for cosmic matter to settle.
Due to hotter gas being common in earlier Times and takes time for it to cool down and easily for new stars to form?
0:39 James W Space Telescope is the longest way to say JWebbST verbally
Keep up your wonderful work, Anton! ❤
Those who worked on the telescope call it "J-WST" i.e. Jay-West. NASA intensely disliked this and threatened to write them up.
Some scientist think the Higgs field could be in a metastable state right now. Maybe at the beginning of the universe, when everything was much closer together, the universe was also in a metastable condition, which allowed for the rapid formation of stars due to slightly different physics. But once we started expanding, stability shifted to our current condition. There's probably no way to prove this, so there's no reason to believe it, but it does sound like a fun theory
From an energy-scale perspective, high-energy physics experiments cannot replicate the conditions a few microseconds after the Big Bang, but the energy scales involved 100 million years later are easily achievable. I am not discounting some relaxation that has not been considered before but I don't think we need to jump to big conclusions just yet.
Show respect for the scientific use of the term "theory" in a hard-science channel. What you posit is a conjecture.
It makes sense. We know of short-lived stars now, so why wouldn't they be there in the early universe?
We expect short-lived stars in the early universe, such as Population III. But expectation is not the same as concrete evidence.
Yes because it does seem the Universe is much older than expected.
No it doesn't.
So, this evidence for rapid star formation with intense concentrations in early galaxies is perhaps a precursor for the development of the first galactic core black holes?
How was there time for the supermassive blackholes to form?
The thought is that some may have formed directly from gas collapse.
It still seems hard to understand how these galaxies formed so quickly. So much energy has to come from somewhere. 300 million years is not much time for gravity to create giant stars out of moving gas.
Many years ago I was part of a crowd source identifying group called Galaxy Zoo (if I remember correctly) it was a lot of fun.
elliptical galaxies today are lacking a lot of the elements that were created in the quasar or the much smaller spiral galaxies
Maybe time had different properties early on?
Probabilistically some of these could be the side view of other galaxies.
I have always understood that in the early universe, galaxies wre much closer together than they are now. Has this been confirmed by the JWST?
It's guesswork and shoehorning at this point.
Big Bang. Expansion. Firewall. Transparency.
Due to density differentials, the quark-gluon stew had already initiated star formation before the 380,000 year firewall had even been breached, although it wouldn't yet be called 'star formation. Light only then started crossing the universe, but the universe at that time was only .00275% the total age and size of the current universe.
Mind blown.
Nope.
We would see that in the CMBR.
What if the Bing Bang took place in an Universe that was already there?!? I don't think we could figure it out.
Maybe the Universe is infinite and from place to place there are massive explosions that create matter.
I like that "Bing Bang"
It would be interesting to know more about, How all the data is utilised that come from JWST,
Check out Dr. Becky. She gets into that sometimes
I had a Mandela effect sort of dream that made me think this guys name was Anton Shmelton
Boondoggle! There is no 'Crisis in cosmology'. Thx Anton.
Q; If the furthest galaxies were possibly slowing down, would that newer dissipated light catch up to older light generated by them that travels in a faster expanding universe , thereby increasing the brightness ?
Is that possible in this universe ?
The little red dots are the edge of the holo-projector. Lol
If you can get a 360 map of the galaxies at that distance you might be able to determine if it’s local. Until then it’s just shoehorning explanations into the black hole theory.
hubble time, or the inverse of the hubble constant, ages the universe at 14.4 Gyr (without correction), the star generations forming 300 million years after the big bang may indicate towards an older universe
Unfortunately there's so much evidence for 13.8 billion that it's going to be hard for anything else to stand up as they usually have more holes
I love this channel. No one ever has any idea what is happening. I should have been an astrophysicist.
You can still make the change. I'm 37, and I'm working on an astrophysics PhD.
Non-zero chance I don't end up getting it, but I'm still trying! I say give it a shot!
@@meuacanJust wait till you start looking for a position!
@@douglaswilkinson5700 Ha! Not wrong - but I'm looking at staying in tech for revenue, since I can do it remotely. Best of both worlds!
@@douglaswilkinson5700 Weird, I thought I'd replied... But ha! Yeah, I know. That's why my plan is to keep working in tech, fully remote, to maintain myself. That way I can travel where I need to as well!
Final, some light shed on ‘broke the cosmological model’. If I can make it through this video. . ,
im telling you they have been feeding the land based telescope that uses a program to get rid of the atmospheric blurr . ever since hubbles trash lens
❤ Anton that's all
I would expect the extremely early universe to be bright. I believe the extremely early universe(maybe 1-100 years) was noisy and very bright. Before the expansion, gravity doesn't exist. So gravity is shallow and wide causing gases to accumulates quickly, the friction of this motion makes fission easy at the high temperatures. Stars form fast. They gorge, and their lifespans are shortened, because of it - lots of supernovae, collisions, black holes, then quasars etc. Matter perpetually being energized, changing, but, as space-time expands, energy has more chance to cool, reactions have a chance to stabilize and the effects of gravity are less consequential and more local, in the larger space. That's how I imagine it, anyway.
Explain please Anton. The "Big Bang" took please approx 13.2 Billion years ago and according to the JWST info this Galaxy JADES-GS-z14-0 was formed about 300 million years later. How can a Galaxy over the period of appr 300 Million years form to that size and also be so complete. Thanks
13.8 billion years. As for the rest, read the papers.
I wonder if these ancient galaxies are still active
The universe has measles! I'm sure they are already working on a vaccine 🤣
James "W" Space Telescope... that's new
🙋♀️💖anton
Captain Video & The Video Rangers said, "clean your telescope lens and you'll quit seeing weird space objects."
Wouldn't higher metallicity of later gas clouds lower the efficiency of star formation?
What I find confusing is that early black holes were huge and yet they didnt consume all the matter, and indeed there is more matter now. How did it escape the black holes. The information must leak and its wuantum pair firms an atom.
Black holes are not vacuum cleaner, they don't suck in stuff from far away. So there is no reason at all to think that they should have consumed all the matter.
Pure Hydrogen might be quicker to condense. Dust might slow down the process.
Okay jeez. If there were already so many 3rd gen stars THAT early, then the idea that humans potentially exist as intelligent life early as possible is no longer true.
Wondering if it's possible, that over these giant distances, like ultra small distances, that maybe something 'macro' quantum physics(y) is going on.
Little red dots all over the linoleum, little red spots on the concrete outside...
Thank you Anton ❤
No, thank you.
I subscribe to the catastrophist model of cosmology so to me mainstream cosmology always has been in crisis.
_"I subscribe to the catastrophist model of cosmology "_
No such thing. Unless you have the name of a peer-reviewed paper I can read?
Maybe ancient galaxies merged, like the milky way is going to
These arent silly big black holes, they are blackholes aligned towards us. That is, bh release light in a polarized way. These bh arent aligned on the glactic plane its "random" how they are oriented. We are just in the right way of these flashlight bh. Btw the orentation is "top/bottom" bh emit the mostlight in these directions. That is perpendicular to the accretion disk.
How are they observing these changes?
I love cosmetology
Earth 4B yrs old…. Space 13B yrs old…… we are young upstarts and have no idea whose yard we are playing in.
Anton, if Earth really is 4B yrs old, is that because of the impact we sustained with the other planet? Theia(?) meaning, whatever we were before Theia&Earth made friends, this original planet cruised around for 9B solo, bam, Theia, boom Earth and the Moon, water, life….
I always thought that Big Bang was just a big nonsense.
And here we are HAHAHhahaha.... 😈
But you can't explain why?
@@davejones7632 Nobody can. "Big Bang" is just 1 theory out millions and millions possibilitys. Bro we barely know whats at the bottom of our ocean.
We have no freaking idea how it all started, how it works and where its going. Its just guessing 🙂
So they look more evolved than they are (for now until that gets changed) but it doesn't explain ton618, big ring or giant arch?
Or maybe there's just a bit wider error margin in the estimate of the age of the Universe?
So it's not say, 13.8 Gy +-100 My, it's more like -+500 My.
What if it's the very edge of the singularity we started in, and it's just older universe
Are some galaxies a leftover from a previous universe? Or could they be from a point outside our visible universe?
How could you possibly see them if they exist beyond the observable universe?
There's definitely a survivorship bias: if two things are in a black hole now, how do you know how far apart they were 11 billion years ago?
There doesn't seem to be a way past that considering the expansion of the universe
Can we know exactly? No we can't.
Can we set an upper limit? Absolutely.
Can we determine a range of most likely values? Probably.
big bang is a Parallax phenomena, i tend to believe in the steady state theory. things do evolve, but we don't have near that scale of time, think more hologram and multi dimensional.
Steady-state died decades ago. The evidence rules it out.
Surely if Anton had been human and not an AI, he would occassionally have to look over the shoulder just to make sure that no black hole is about to suck him in, or a big bang about to explode behind his back.
But if everything homogenous, no ambient space and no friction the universe expanding is interacting with, then there wouldn't be a change in efficiency of star formation?
so did our galaxy come from the galaxies your talking about. we would still have to be apart of it . or where is our galaxy
Sooo... where are these super super massive black holes now... they just disappear?
I just read that time was up to 5 times slower in the early universe. I wonder if that would effect any of this.
No, time was the same then as it is now.
@@davejones7632 Thanks Dave. I just read an 'Ask Ethan' explanation. Much better now.
@@windfoil1000 That was the one I was going to suggest, but couldn't remember where I'd read it.
Maybe there wouldn’t be so much controversy if instead, they named it the “it looks like we’re inside an explosion“ theory.
explosion was everywhere at once
test - thanks for unshadowbanning me YT/Anton / gods of the internet / rules of society.
Evidence so small with more speculation then answers.
I do not understand why the universe was only a little bit denser than it is today in the earliest epoch. Depending on how far back you look, I would expect the universe to be dozens or even thousands of times denser.
I mean, "little bit" is subjective, but you are right. The mean density of matter in the universe is proportional to the scale factor cubed, so at a redshift of 14 for example, like that of some of these early galaxies, the scale factor is a = 1/(1+z) = 1/15, so matter would be 15^3 = 3375 times as dense. But that takes you from ~1 atom per cubic meter today to a few thousand, which is still hundreds of thousands of times better than the best vacuum achieved on Earth.
Lo unico que se puede afirmar es que en esas galaxias lejanas vemos el universo como era hace 13500 millones de años, independientemente del modelo cosmológico que utilicemos, y no significa que el Big Bang lo explique mejor que otros modelos
Which other models?
@@ahmadpcgaming Creationism most likely!
@@ahmadpcgaming Universo fractal, alli el universo comenzaría también desde un punto formando estructuras fractales, comienzo indefinido hacia atras en el tiempo, la expansión métrica de FLRW no aplicaría. Vease autores Pietronero, Carabio, etc, ETC
So universe is going back to another ordinary universe full of ordinary galaxies. How the turntable.
Why are the first few seconds of the videos always cut off for me...
Sadly, I believe the answers lie beyond our observable universe bubble.
Maybe we're seeing another universe
Day 46 asking Anton to bring back What Da Math
Only a matter of time before we discover an object more then 13.8 billion light years away.
According to which particular unqualified youtube crackpot?
James web = Ye olde time muscle man at a carnival.
“Watch me bend the rules of cosmology in the shape of a pretzel!”
😂
Your videos are a blessing.