All "the scientist" are saying is that these data don't readily fit current models, so it's "New Model Time". Models are all we have, and models is what scientists do. No big deal.
Eventually people will learn to stop saying ''shouldn't be possible'' Nothing happens in contradiction to nature, only in contradiction to what we know of it.
Yeah, those kinds of clickbaity titles just erode trust in science Like those digital tabloids will be like “OMG! SCIENTISTS ARE SHOCKED TO DISCOVER THEY WERE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING!!” and then it turns out they just found a galaxy that’s slightly outside of what models predict for the brightness/mass ratio
that is an indication that you need to do more reading in the here and now ... basic understanding of the universe has not changed very much in thousands of years, only the details keep getting tweaked ... obviously the bible would disagree with your summation. I am not in support of the bible but I am in support of ideas that have been buried but will make a comeback when 'we the sheeple' are ready to embrace them once again
So true! I am 75, and it was scarcely 25 years before I was born that we finally fully understood that the Milky Way was not the entire universe. 3 great human inventions: the wheel, music, and the space telescopes!
You may not see a ship's lights in the fog, but the lighthouse on the other hand... Whatever is going on in that galaxy has to be producing the needed massive amounts of radiation to produce that emission that got through that much neutral hydrogen. So the question is, to get that strong of a reading, from a galaxy that far back in time, how much must it be producing to punch that much through? And what processes could possibly do that in an early galaxy?
After we gradually became able to see what we couldn't see with the naked eye, we are now at the point where we can see things that we actually shouldn’t be able to see at all😅
A couple comments: 1. That H-alpha line is VERY broad, suggesting relativistic speeds around a central black hole. The extreme dopplar shifting means it won't be absorbed by neutral hydrogen. 2. The accepted age of the universe seems to be more and more at odds with recent observations. Tweak the age a few hundred million years and then these aren't "impossible"
Hypothesis: a super massive black hole jet had beamed a reionized window for us to see (in wavelengths blocked by neutral hydrogen) further into the past.
IF that galaxy shouldn't be visible to us, they're really going to be upset when they look at a couple of the others in the same region...They're even more distant (yet still barely visible).
Your comment reads as if you already know what future pictures will show, and yet the scientists will be caught completely surprised. If only they paid attention to youtube comments
@@whataboutthis10 Its recognizing the pattern in the pictures thus far, strong lack of solid evidence reinforcing inflation/reioniz. theories (we should have already seem 'certain' things way more significant than the L-A line)... Compound this with fact they can't tell if photons velocity = c or >=c or
@@whataboutthis10 We haven't; seen a lot of singular galaxies existing alone in a hydrogen void and interacting with nothing else. Anyone that knows anything about cosmology that sees one galaxy can make a lot of inferences about what else would exist. Since we already have proof one exists, it's not a stretch to postulate it isn't the only one, that's just basic logic. If only asshats on youtube understood what a pathetic appeal to authority argument is.
@@whataboutthis10 where does it say that there are no further galaxies in the same region? i thought this was about a certain galaxy emitting a strange wavelength.
Sounds like when I was standing on Mt Batur waiting for dawn. There were a few brief moments when the multiple layers of clouds shifted different derections, and the sun shon through. Why couldn't this same, simple earthly phenomenon also work at the cosmic scale?
Anton, I just wanted to say thank you for everything you do and sharing your knowledge. We all love you bud. I drive for uber and listening to your videos is something I look forward to every single day.
LOL. Right you are. They are spewing nonsense again. It all confirms the Plasma Cosmology [Electric Universe theory 🧲⚡] and hence why conventional astrophysicists are stumped...again. 🙃 The source of their puzzlement here is their misunderstanding of red shift. For a better explanation check out astronomer Halton Arp's book 'Seeing Red'. Reg. previous 'unexplained' phenomena: We in the Plasma Cosmology community understand the origin and nature of the pulses/fluctuations/variability/bubbles. The origins are in the nature of the Birkeland currents/filaments of the Cosmic Web we are just now discovering. The enormous amount of current fluctuates... hence the variability in the stars. The 'nucular' theory can't explain this and other 'mysteries'. HA! Physicists are on the wrong road. BS counter #1] There is no such thing as magnetic lines!!!!!!!!!!‼ and therefore there is nothing to get 'twisted'!!!!!!!! The 'lines' are but our visual representation of mag fields. STOP USING AS A PHYSICAL PHENOMENON.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone utter this is just showing their scientific ignorance. 🤡 🎪 BS counter #2] Mag fields can't SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!!‼ That's just more scientific ignorance. Geezus!!!!!!! 💩🚽 BS counter #3] Not that I support the existence of the phenomena which the lamestream science calls black holes, but since light and all EM radiation can't exit the event horizon there can't be any bilateral interaction between the BH and the accretion disc.‼ DONE with this theory/notion propounded by this video. But if there was a interaction that caused the BH to stop instantly it would shred/jettison the accretion disc. Has this ever been observed? NO!!!! Please put this fairy tale to rest. 🤦♂ See my expanded comments in Anton's previous videos. 🎩 ... .. .
Not just red shift models are wrong but also our biased ideas of how everything came to be. Science sifted out the bias but ego is slowing science down.
redshift, distance is just a shoddy pyramid with known wrong assumptions and calculations. Newton instead of Einstein, PI = 3 = 1. Ever since we started using this as basis instead of particle physics, the entire field of physics got stuck. Coincidence? I think not. Astrophysicists have no idea what they're doing. Even the entire concept of inflation was made with initially only 30 observations, which showed a clear dipole IN THE DIRECTION OF EARTH TRAVELING lmfao. And they still took at as meaning that there was no dipole and somehow evidence for inflation. Morons.
Did the big bang occur? If we are seeing light from billions of years ago, shouldn't that light have passed us billions of years ago? On the other hand, if the universe formed more broadly (not from a central bang, but nearly instantaneously across a larger space) then we would be in a position to receive the light from such a distance/time. Why else would the light be reaching us now?
The big bang wasn't an explosion that occurred at the center of a preexisting space, it was the expansion of space itself, occurring everywhere at once. Kinda weird.
That's my issue. Wouldn't the light from that time already be past us? My other thought is that intelligence serves the ego. Robert Anton Wilson observed that "The Thinker thinks, the Prover proves". We arrange our views to accommodate our prejudices. The human primate brain, using our five murky senses, peering through our clunky machines simply cannot clearly see the Universe and so certain primates create elaborate mathematical fantasies in their minds that conform. I would not bet two cents on our current theories.
@@rodturner4589 yeah when you really think about it, it's almost like a cosmological big bang is nonsensical drivel that gained traction because it fit the theology of mathematicians and scientists of the era.
@@daleb5967 More of the same what? More of what we see in our neighbourhood? Or more of what the JWST actually sees? You _do_ know that most of the galaxies JWST sees are quite different from the ones we see in or neighbourhood - don't you...?
@@daleb5967actually just more of the same, but in much higher detail. One of the ways to make lager telescopes much cheaper is to actually use the gravity of the sun or the earth as a gravity lense!
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 seriously.......a large part of the community expected things like:. The age to double, central black holes in galaxies, swarms of black holes, swarms of black holes in sag a, mega black holes in quasars, I could go on forever here........since the 70s. It just wasn't common topics in media.
@@elijahfluw4347 I thought about it _extensively_. I read both his arguments and lots of counterarguments. I studied the science myself. I looked up the sources he mentions in his work and found out that in lots of cases, he totally misrepresent what the sources say - he pretends that the sources support him, where in reality they totally contradict his claims. His book _is_ garbage. Definitely.
LOL. Right you are. They are spewing nonsense again. It all confirms the Plasma Cosmology [Electric Universe theory 🧲⚡] and hence why conventional astrophysicists are stumped...again. 🙃 The source of their puzzlement here is their misunderstanding of red shift. For a better explanation check out astronomer Halton Arp's book 'Seeing Red'. Reg. previous 'unexplained' phenomena: We in the Plasma Cosmology community understand the origin and nature of the pulses/fluctuations/variability/bubbles. The origins are in the nature of the Birkeland currents/filaments of the Cosmic Web we are just now discovering. The enormous amount of current fluctuates... hence the variability in the stars. The 'nucular' theory can't explain this and other 'mysteries'. HA! Physicists are on the wrong road. BS counter #1] There is no such thing as magnetic lines!!!!!!!!!!‼ and therefore there is nothing to get 'twisted'!!!!!!!! The 'lines' are but our visual representation of mag fields. STOP USING AS A PHYSICAL PHENOMENON.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone utter this is just showing their scientific ignorance. 🤡 🎪 BS counter #2] Mag fields can't SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!!‼ That's just more scientific ignorance. Geezus!!!!!!! 💩🚽 BS counter #3] Not that I support the existence of the phenomena which the lamestream science calls black holes, but since light and all EM radiation can't exit the event horizon there can't be any bilateral interaction between the BH and the accretion disc.‼ DONE with this theory/notion propounded by this video. But if there was a interaction that caused the BH to stop instantly it would shred/jettison the accretion disc. Has this ever been observed? NO!!!! Please put this fairy tale to rest. 🤦♂ See my expanded comments in Anton's previous videos. 🎩
We either have something wrong in our theories concerning the age and evolution of the universe, or our assumptions that universal constants are constant, or that even the laws of physics are constant, need revisiting. I'm open to either possibility.
ummm akshully all of that's been totally disproven and we need another 15 billion dollars for another attempt to find non-existent non-baryonic dark matter. I Trust the Science!!!
I've worked with radio astronomers, planetary astronomers, exoplanet experts, et al for a good part of my career. One of the most fascinating specialties is determining the interstellar medium (ISM), its properties, how it affects the radiation from distant objects, and how to separate its effects from the details we want to know about those objects. Then there's the inter-galactic medium, much closer to a pure vacuum than the ISM, yet we can extract measurable properties of that. Nothing about the IGM is for sure, subject to refinement with new observations.
"Scientists just found out that all those things that you were told off for questioning in class... are based on little more than speculation and not only was it fair for you to criticise, but you were correct about some of your speculative musings - it's just a shame that they either kicked you out, failed you, or put you off pursuing the academic route"! Yay 21st century science!
When I see photos of early galaxies, there is always a certai amount of what seems to be "noise", seemingly random little pixel dots. I am curious, if another photo of the exact same area was taken later, would any of those little dots persist in exactly the same place? If so, might we be seeing even farther out than the galaxies in the photo? Just wondering...
My question for Anton: surely nobody ever expected re-ionization to have occurred everywhere all at once, so, why would finding a precocious bubble be so surprising?
Why wouldn't 'everything' offer distinguishable observables? Also it's 'just' everything there is, it's not at all like 'everything that could be'. And even less, it's only everything we can observe. So yeah, plenty of reason to expect 'particularities'
humans will never observe something in the Universe that should not be happening. If anything, it is the human understanding of what they are observing which is flawed. The Universe knows much more about being the universe than any human ever will. No matter how much humans think they know, the remain blind to the vast knowledge they do not know.
I bet the universe is actually infinite with no wall and there is some weird phenomenon outside the expanse of our point of the universe that cant be viewed because of the sheer distance is too great and/or the amount of particles creates a blanket that block anything visible beyond the expanse of our point of the universe. there is probably a state particles eventuality just compile enough to create a new big bang else where in a process that takes an unimaginable amount of time to go through.
Very interesting but also a little disappointing, LOL! I saw that title and initially thought maybe JWST saw a galaxy outside what we usually consider the observable universe!
Redshift of 13 ! Nearly twice the previous record holder, with a redshift of 7. 13.5billion lightyears away, but it's not there anymore. In fact, we've got no idea where these galaxies would be now. Nor do we know where our galaxy would have been back then, in relation to these observations. Time & motion can be funny, at times. Could it be possible, that we may observe the birth of our own galaxy? With the path in line, we could even be our own gravity lens. 🚀🏴☠️🎸
I think the Big Bang Theory gives us an inspired stepping stone in our understanding. It would be interesting to hear what Einstein might say if he was around today! May he rest in peace.
@@seamusbrennan6302 well he believed in a static universe originally which i lean towards. Everything moving away from Everything may be an illusion that we dont understand like how we dont understand why or how light acts differently when being observed. It may be the universe appears different while being observed since the part that is observable is the light.
@@MrBigdaddy2ya "a static universe originally which i lean towards" That is _strongly_ contradicted by _lots_ of observations. E. g. the existence of the CMBR. Or that quasars are seen only in a certain distance range. Or the age of stars. Or the abundance of the elements. etc. "we dont understand why or how light acts differently when being observed" Err, we do understand that. Try learning some quantum mechanics from actual textbooks instead of only from the internet.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 quantum mechanics is mostly theoretical. The cmb doesn't prove anything except that the universe is oddly uniformly the same temperature. The age of the stars is theoretical at this point. How about you not pass theories off as fact. Its a disservice to understanding
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 how you can you explain the fine tuned universe. The odds of this all happening by accident is 1 in a gazillion yet you want me to choose the 1 as being the most probably path to where we are. You can't even tell me where mass came from. Was it always there if so why is a big bag needed. We see structures in the universe that defy understanding the Big Ring, the cosmic web, the 27 million light year long jets that Anton talked about a few days ago. The more we look the less we understand because we are trying to fit everything into a neat box. Truth will do what it wants and will leave the truth deniers in the dust. Seems you like the taste of dust.
I enjoy these videos even though I disagree with so much of what's being said, because I don't believe the big bang theory. I don't believe the "universe" (whatever that is) ever had a "beginning" (whatever that is) rather, I believe the cosmos (all of everything in total) is infinitely old and just in case I need to explain what the word "infinite" means... it means there simply never was a beginning and there never will be an ending. I think the "red shift" has been completely and entirely misinterpreted and this has resulted in scientists (even the smart ones) actually believing in the absurd idea that time began one magical day 13.6 (or maybe it's 13.8... I hear a lot of variations on that theme) years ago. Then I hear geniuses telling me about their "multiverse" theory, which they have no way of explaining why all these expanding universes haven't blended into and through each other yet... I guess they all "began" about 13 point something years ago because all the drawings they show me of this multiverse depicts all the universes at about the same size. (and they don't yet see that as yet another telltale sign of how absurd this fantasy of theirs is) So I watch videos like this and I listen to what's being said about "the early universe" (whatever that is) and I just shake my head and smile... knowing one day in the hopefully not too distant future, humans will figure out that the whole idea of a "beginning of the universe" is just another religious type of fantasy and there never was any beginning. Get over it people, there's no "origin story" and "where did everything come from?" is a stupid leading question which presumes the impossible to be true and only asks "when did the magic happen?". The "big bang" is a magical event, just like Adam & Eve and the story of Noah and the Great Flood... which (news flash) never happened either. The Big Bang Theory is science's version of the Book of Genesis and this is one of those moments when both the religious people and the scientists are both wrong and for the same reason... because they can't handle the infinities. They can't even imagine the concepts of infinitely large, infinitely small, infinitely old or an infinite future... even though those are realities. I have spoken.
As the densities of baryonic matter increase time slows, essentially at 'infinite' densities it ceases. So the idea that the universe has an 'age' only works in the same way absolute zero follows from projection of the slope of the ideal gas laws, the reality is that 'ideal' gases don't exist, all the ones we know collapse to liquids/solids at temperatures below the conditions used to define the 'ideal gas laws'. From where we are now 15-billion makes sense, but if you were projected back to the very early universe your present yard-stick would not be valid or applicable. Its one of those 'infinities' that plagues us by division by zero.
@@douglaswilkinson5700 I would like to know where you get that date, because the last measurement of the age of the universe is 13.7 Billions Years with a discrepancy of + - 200 Millions years.
In conservative sense of the term 'big bang' it refers to the nearly-uniform super-hot and dense state at around 10^-dozen seconds. The age since then is a well defined concept, it's value however is a fit to the model, so there's some % uncertainty Before the described time when 'standard BigBang theory starts' the inflation is a promising theory, there's a lower bound estimated for its time span. Before 10^-afewdozen seconds theories are wilder, and it's far from clear that 'an initial singularity at t=0' was even real
It's no coincidence Antons videos are released around the time of day my edibles are seriously kicking in and I can truly appreciate the universe. Thanks wonderful dude. PS. let me know if you want a dozen of my cosmic cookies
Fantasy beings have nothing to do with it. I am sure some people believe that Smurfs have something to do with it, but they have officially renounced all responsibility.
So the speed of light is not fixed is a big answer or the speed depends on the instrument or simulation makes everything better and 500 more questions. I love science and I hate dying just for that
@@drewharrison6433Anton is the source generally of this type of information. That is, he explains papers created by experts. I am 70. I too am so happy to learn so much before I too go kaput. So much more yet will be discovered. Such an exciting time to be alive. At my age, I look around and find a lot of people who take a lot for granted.
Could also be interesting to look in the opposite direction and see if we find something similar but much closer? Maybe seeing the wrapped light of the universe?
@@carmenmccauley585 That is based on the accelerating expansion of the universe due to dark energy pushing galaxies apart. So there is no point of return.
Sounds like a bubble of stuff/matter/gas inside or on the other side of a void just the right (humongous) size for the light to never hit more gas on the border of the void before reionization (and transparency) happened elsewhere to diffuse it into the Shadow Realm, I mean, into essentially background noise on the data. In other words, the researchers could check that region in the CMB and look for voids or subdensity in that area, if that's there, at least how the light got to JWT's sensor so pristine gets, at least, partially explained. As for why or how it reionized (seemingly) way earlier than what we see elsewhere, well, that's beyond what I study, so, yeah, my comment here is pure speculation on a topic I'm not versed enough to speculate properly: maybe, small islands of matter inside voids could have slightly different rates of evolution? Again, that's really beyond my pay grade, but, well, makes sense in my head that with less stuff nearby slowing down the pull of matter into that galaxy, it might end up developing just a tiny bit faster. (If anyone reading this happens to write any paper on it, just give a shoutout to an anonymous dude having a brain fart online in there somewhere. :D)
When you look that far, you’re seeing THE PAST. Not because it already happened in REAL TIME because it did, to some distant observer, but because the amount of time it would take to read light from there or get back there from here would result in that action/object being gone already. 😎🧠💯
I don’t like title like this. The light is exactly like it should, what is off is the understanding. Saying a wierd star “shouldn’t exist” or similar titles imply that we know everything and find wierd stuff, but the stuff is not wierd. We just don’t have an idea what we are looking at. So instead of saying that something is wierd, shouldn’t exist or is impossible you should say “we again found something that proves we basically know nothing” But thats not clickbaity.
EUREKA EUREKA.. Now I know. That galaxias looks older than they could be becsuse we are see the light Reflexion of a younger galaxy that bounced back from the edge of the universe and only them arrived to us.
we are so persistant to try to understand something what extremely high intelligence created, we will probably never understand what universe is, who created it and whats the purpose of it, we are just not capable of understanding it.
Not sure I completely understand. Is it that neutral hydrogen emits Lyman alpha radiation, and if it is surrounded by lots of other neutral hydrogen, that absorbs the emitted Lyman alpha radiation and reemits it in random directions, so that the radiation would be highly scattered and not visible to us?
If you are a February 29th Birthday. This Galaxy is for you! The hidden secrets of this day is like the twilight zone. Anyway you might think I’m crazy but hey we all have viewpoints.
I'm not sure how a re-ionized hydrogen bubble would provide a mechanism for Lyman alpha light from JADES-GS-z13-1-LA to propagate through the neutral hydrogen outside the bubble that would otherwise adsorb the wavelength. Would this be because the bubble is large enough for red-shifting of Lyman alpha light from the source to occur, sufficiently enough to bypass the absorption characteristics of the neutral hydrogen outside the bubble and allowing it to reach us? A very compelling video.
When the universe gives you Lyman, make Lymanade.
If you have lemons, look for Gin and Tonic.
Hmmmm, crimson red Lymanade. 🍷
I hate Schrodinger's cat, . . . or not .
I thought limons were related to a Sprite 🍋 🍋🟩 🥤
😂😅🤣
I'm waiting for the headline "Looking through the most powerful telescope ever, scientists see the backs of their own heads"
That reads like a Gary Larson comic
Say, Mel Brooks could make a movie about that.
That feeling when you know you're being watched
Space is a circle space is a circle space is a circle
Since we are looking back in time, we could only see our heads as they were billions of years ago... ;)
I love when scientists say this shouldn't be possible and the universe just says "hold my beer".
😂😂😂😂😂😂
love it!
🤣
All "the scientist" are saying is that these data don't readily fit current models, so it's "New Model Time". Models are all we have, and models is what scientists do. No big deal.
when scientists say " this shouldn't be possible" while staring at the thing, It means they discovered something new or they messed something up.
Eventually people will learn to stop saying ''shouldn't be possible''
Nothing happens in contradiction to nature, only in contradiction to what we know of it.
Agree. Using "is unexpected" or something to that effect is much less misleading.
"Doesn't fit within the range of predictions in our current mathematical modeling for estimated cosmological values" doesn't have the same ring to it.
Yeah, those kinds of clickbaity titles just erode trust in science
Like those digital tabloids will be like “OMG! SCIENTISTS ARE SHOCKED TO DISCOVER THEY WERE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING!!” and then it turns out they just found a galaxy that’s slightly outside of what models predict for the brightness/mass ratio
It's more compelling. "Shouldn't be possible" may be exaggerating, but it catches eyes and gets clicks on articles.
When they say something shouldn't be possible, the "by our current models" is implied
Nature gives zero fucks about what we think is possible.
Our understanding of the universe when I was young will be unrecognizable from our understanding by the time I die.
If you are fortunate.....😊
You have no idea how right you are 👍
that is an indication that you need to do more reading in the here and now ... basic understanding of the universe has not changed very much in thousands of years, only the details keep getting tweaked ... obviously the bible would disagree with your summation. I am not in support of the bible but I am in support of ideas that have been buried but will make a comeback when 'we the sheeple' are ready to embrace them once again
@@islandbuoy4 Wow. You need to read more about the history of astronomy and astrophysics, for starters. I mean, just start with recent history.
So true! I am 75, and it was scarcely 25 years before I was born that we finally fully understood that the Milky Way was not the entire universe. 3 great human inventions: the wheel, music, and the space telescopes!
You may not see a ship's lights in the fog, but the lighthouse on the other hand... Whatever is going on in that galaxy has to be producing the needed massive amounts of radiation to produce that emission that got through that much neutral hydrogen. So the question is, to get that strong of a reading, from a galaxy that far back in time, how much must it be producing to punch that much through? And what processes could possibly do that in an early galaxy?
Maybe it's a black hole that is getting fed by a lot of fuel?
After we gradually became able to see what we couldn't see with the naked eye, we are now at the point where we can see things that we actually shouldn’t be able to see at all😅
Unthinkable things.
every hippie on LSD. first time?😁
Uh….ok?
We're just making it up as we go
@@infinidominion Maybe a bug flew across the lens.
JWST is just that badass.
And just think what the next generation will be like. Maybe a 1 AU diameter cluster interferometer.
@@TheJimtankerTriple it.
@@christopherbrice5473 5 AU 😦
Agreed. That's why the ELT makes me nervous and excited at the same time.
It's the Chuck Norris of telescopes.
That galaxy probably had a quasar that happened to be pointed towards us, ionizing a path allowing the hydrogen light to reach us.
Watching your videos everyday Sir. Amazing service to the community 🙏🏼✨
A couple comments:
1. That H-alpha line is VERY broad, suggesting relativistic speeds around a central black hole. The extreme dopplar shifting means it won't be absorbed by neutral hydrogen.
2. The accepted age of the universe seems to be more and more at odds with recent observations. Tweak the age a few hundred million years and then these aren't "impossible"
Hypothesis: a super massive black hole jet had beamed a reionized window for us to see (in wavelengths blocked by neutral hydrogen) further into the past.
Thanks to Anton I now see the light! 🎉😊
😂
IF that galaxy shouldn't be visible to us, they're really going to be upset when they look at a couple of the others in the same region...They're even more distant (yet still barely visible).
Your comment reads as if you already know what future pictures will show, and yet the scientists will be caught completely surprised.
If only they paid attention to youtube comments
@@whataboutthis10 Its recognizing the pattern in the pictures thus far, strong lack of solid evidence reinforcing inflation/reioniz. theories (we should have already seem 'certain' things way more significant than the L-A line)...
Compound this with fact they can't tell if photons velocity = c or >=c or
@@whataboutthis10he's right . People who figured out that big bang is a broken theory aren't surprised by these results.
@@whataboutthis10 We haven't; seen a lot of singular galaxies existing alone in a hydrogen void and interacting with nothing else. Anyone that knows anything about cosmology that sees one galaxy can make a lot of inferences about what else would exist. Since we already have proof one exists, it's not a stretch to postulate it isn't the only one, that's just basic logic. If only asshats on youtube understood what a pathetic appeal to authority argument is.
@@whataboutthis10 where does it say that there are no further galaxies in the same region? i thought this was about a certain galaxy emitting a strange wavelength.
Perhaps that fog of neutral Hydrogen was not uniformly distributed so this early galaxy is shining through a clear or thin zone in the fog
that's whats behind the CMB image theory that they've been pushing for the last few decades.
Sounds like when I was standing on Mt Batur waiting for dawn. There were a few brief moments when the multiple layers of clouds shifted different derections, and the sun shon through.
Why couldn't this same, simple earthly phenomenon also work at the cosmic scale?
Anton, I just wanted to say thank you for everything you do and sharing your knowledge. We all love you bud. I drive for uber and listening to your videos is something I look forward to every single day.
Another day, another piece of evidence for redshift being an unreliable measure of distance/age.
Big bang is a blunder!
LOL. Right you are. They are spewing nonsense again. It all confirms the Plasma Cosmology [Electric Universe theory 🧲⚡] and hence why conventional astrophysicists are stumped...again. 🙃 The source of their puzzlement here is their misunderstanding of red shift. For a better explanation check out astronomer Halton Arp's book 'Seeing Red'.
Reg. previous 'unexplained' phenomena:
We in the Plasma Cosmology community understand the origin and nature of the pulses/fluctuations/variability/bubbles. The origins are in the nature of the Birkeland currents/filaments of the Cosmic Web we are just now discovering. The enormous amount of current fluctuates... hence the variability in the stars. The 'nucular' theory can't explain this and other 'mysteries'. HA! Physicists are on the wrong road.
BS counter #1] There is no such thing as magnetic lines!!!!!!!!!!‼ and therefore there is nothing to get 'twisted'!!!!!!!! The 'lines' are but our visual representation of mag fields. STOP USING AS A PHYSICAL PHENOMENON.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone utter this is just showing their scientific ignorance. 🤡
🎪
BS counter #2] Mag fields can't SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!!‼ That's just more scientific ignorance. Geezus!!!!!!! 💩🚽
BS counter #3] Not that I support the existence of the phenomena which the lamestream science calls black holes, but since light and all EM radiation can't exit the event horizon there can't be any bilateral interaction between the BH and the accretion disc.‼ DONE with this theory/notion propounded by this video. But if there was a interaction that caused the BH to stop instantly it would shred/jettison the accretion disc. Has this ever been observed? NO!!!! Please put this fairy tale to rest. 🤦♂
See my expanded comments in Anton's previous videos. 🎩
...
..
.
Not just red shift models are wrong but also our biased ideas of how everything came to be. Science sifted out the bias but ego is slowing science down.
redshift, distance is just a shoddy pyramid with known wrong assumptions and calculations. Newton instead of Einstein, PI = 3 = 1. Ever since we started using this as basis instead of particle physics, the entire field of physics got stuck. Coincidence? I think not. Astrophysicists have no idea what they're doing.
Even the entire concept of inflation was made with initially only 30 observations, which showed a clear dipole IN THE DIRECTION OF EARTH TRAVELING lmfao. And they still took at as meaning that there was no dipole and somehow evidence for inflation. Morons.
My theory is that the universe has pockets of space time that are expanding at a different rate to the general average rate
Did the big bang occur? If we are seeing light from billions of years ago, shouldn't that light have passed us billions of years ago? On the other hand, if the universe formed more broadly (not from a central bang, but nearly instantaneously across a larger space) then we would be in a position to receive the light from such a distance/time. Why else would the light be reaching us now?
The big bang wasn't an explosion that occurred at the center of a preexisting space, it was the expansion of space itself, occurring everywhere at once. Kinda weird.
That's my issue. Wouldn't the light from that time already be past us? My other thought is that intelligence serves the ego. Robert Anton Wilson observed that "The Thinker thinks, the Prover proves". We arrange our views to accommodate our prejudices. The human primate brain, using our five murky senses, peering through our clunky machines simply cannot clearly see the Universe and so certain primates create elaborate mathematical fantasies in their minds that conform. I would not bet two cents on our current theories.
@@rodturner4589 yeah when you really think about it, it's almost like a cosmological big bang is nonsensical drivel that gained traction because it fit the theology of mathematicians and scientists of the era.
Good ol’ JWST! Keeps right on breaking physics :-)
breaks bb theories.
Thanks!
Fr.
I suspect there are many more galaxies just out of view. I wonder what we might see if we had a telescope twice as big as JWST?
More of the same....
@@daleb5967 More of the same what? More of what we see in our neighbourhood? Or more of what the JWST actually sees? You _do_ know that most of the galaxies JWST sees are quite different from the ones we see in or neighbourhood - don't you...?
@@daleb5967actually just more of the same, but in much higher detail.
One of the ways to make lager telescopes much cheaper is to actually use the gravity of the sun or the earth as a gravity lense!
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 more similar distant galaxies....
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 seriously.......a large part of the community expected things like:. The age to double, central black holes in galaxies, swarms of black holes, swarms of black holes in sag a, mega black holes in quasars, I could go on forever here........since the 70s. It just wasn't common topics in media.
Don't worry, I'm gonna pretend I didn't see it
Maybe the universe is older than we thought
I quote the brilliant Eric Lerner The Big bang never happened
That book was already garbage when he published it, and it has not become better in the meantime.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514yet,it could be true just as easy as it could be garbage. Be honest and think about that...
@@elijahfluw4347 I thought about it _extensively_. I read both his arguments and lots of counterarguments. I studied the science myself. I looked up the sources he mentions in his work and found out that in lots of cases, he totally misrepresent what the sources say - he pretends that the sources support him, where in reality they totally contradict his claims.
His book _is_ garbage. Definitely.
When it seems impossible, check your assumptions. Why would re-ionization be uniform across vast distances?
LOL. Right you are. They are spewing nonsense again. It all confirms the Plasma Cosmology [Electric Universe theory 🧲⚡] and hence why conventional astrophysicists are stumped...again. 🙃 The source of their puzzlement here is their misunderstanding of red shift. For a better explanation check out astronomer Halton Arp's book 'Seeing Red'.
Reg. previous 'unexplained' phenomena:
We in the Plasma Cosmology community understand the origin and nature of the pulses/fluctuations/variability/bubbles. The origins are in the nature of the Birkeland currents/filaments of the Cosmic Web we are just now discovering. The enormous amount of current fluctuates... hence the variability in the stars. The 'nucular' theory can't explain this and other 'mysteries'. HA! Physicists are on the wrong road.
BS counter #1] There is no such thing as magnetic lines!!!!!!!!!!‼ and therefore there is nothing to get 'twisted'!!!!!!!! The 'lines' are but our visual representation of mag fields. STOP USING AS A PHYSICAL PHENOMENON.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone utter this is just showing their scientific ignorance. 🤡
🎪
BS counter #2] Mag fields can't SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!!‼ That's just more scientific ignorance. Geezus!!!!!!! 💩🚽
BS counter #3] Not that I support the existence of the phenomena which the lamestream science calls black holes, but since light and all EM radiation can't exit the event horizon there can't be any bilateral interaction between the BH and the accretion disc.‼ DONE with this theory/notion propounded by this video. But if there was a interaction that caused the BH to stop instantly it would shred/jettison the accretion disc. Has this ever been observed? NO!!!! Please put this fairy tale to rest. 🤦♂
See my expanded comments in Anton's previous videos. 🎩
Another great episode!
If it shouldn't be visible it wouldnt be, not to sound pedantic.
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 🙃👍
We either have something wrong in our theories concerning the age and evolution of the universe, or our assumptions that universal constants are constant, or that even the laws of physics are constant, need revisiting. I'm open to either possibility.
ummm akshully all of that's been totally disproven and we need another 15 billion dollars for another attempt to find non-existent non-baryonic dark matter. I Trust the Science!!!
What has that light gone through before jwst found it?
I've worked with radio astronomers, planetary astronomers, exoplanet experts, et al for a good part of my career. One of the most fascinating specialties is determining the interstellar medium (ISM), its properties, how it affects the radiation from distant objects, and how to separate its effects from the details we want to know about those objects. Then there's the inter-galactic medium, much closer to a pure vacuum than the ISM, yet we can extract measurable properties of that. Nothing about the IGM is for sure, subject to refinement with new observations.
With all the BS running rapidly throughout this world currently, my JPL BS meter is running saying "Lo Bat" Thank you Anton👊👊👊
plot twist: the ai channels are now using anton's pic instead of ndgt or brian cox
Why is the comment section full of bots?
Because YT keeps deleting real people's comments
It's a problem with all channels unfortunately
What bots ?
Beep buzz boop bleep
Hey I hear that, I am a good bot!
@@Very_Angry_Citizen The ones that have cobgratulating messages all ending in cake emojis for some reason
"Scientists just found out that all those things that you were told off for questioning in class... are based on little more than speculation and not only was it fair for you to criticise, but you were correct about some of your speculative musings - it's just a shame that they either kicked you out, failed you, or put you off pursuing the academic route"!
Yay 21st century science!
That kind of fits Anton, tbh
Maybe they just have no idea what they saying.
When I see photos of early galaxies, there is always a certai amount of what seems to be "noise", seemingly random little pixel dots. I am curious, if another photo of the exact same area was taken later, would any of those little dots persist in exactly the same place? If so, might we be seeing even farther out than the galaxies in the photo? Just wondering...
My question for Anton: surely nobody ever expected re-ionization to have occurred everywhere all at once, so, why would finding a precocious bubble be so surprising?
the beauty has been there since the beginning. how can we expect anything in particular from something that's everything?
I am unable to find the flaw in your logic.
But I didn't find the logic either
Its not everything everywhere at the same time, thats how.
Why wouldn't 'everything' offer distinguishable observables?
Also it's 'just' everything there is, it's not at all like 'everything that could be'. And even less, it's only everything we can observe.
So yeah, plenty of reason to expect 'particularities'
I’m glad I found your space channel. There are so many ‘copy and paste’; ridiculous clickbait titled videos out there.
anytime we observe something impossible, it means the theory still needs work :)
Any time we observe something "impossible," it means it is possible.
You know what’s gonna be funny… when the next big telescope is launched and in operation and it finds 1000’s of galaxies beyond those being found now…
humans will never observe something in the Universe that should not be happening. If anything, it is the human understanding of what they are observing which is flawed. The Universe knows much more about being the universe than any human ever will. No matter how much humans think they know, the remain blind to the vast knowledge they do not know.
Yeah it really irks me when they say should not. Says who? Should make better theory
Well here's a jumped-on result that is a prime candidate for being explained away next month.
The simplest explanation is that there is a low hydrogen density region between us and this unusual galaxy ( the bubble ).
7:10 This model of ionization looks like granite.
I wonder if it could be a blazar pointed directly at us that instead of creating a bubble of transparent hydrogen, created a channel ahead of it.
In short, The whole big bang theory is crap
This is a proof our interpretation of the red shift is wrong. It can not be due to speed only. Even if Doppler effect has its importance
"Or maybe it could possibly be something else!" _Everybody loves Anton's ambiguity!_ 😂
Wait until they find the inside corner of the shoebox we are stored in.
Perspective. 😊
People are waking up and realising that astrophysicists really don't know what the hell is going on out there
James Webb Space Telescope Telescope? Why did you put Telescope twice?
Legend
I bet the universe is actually infinite with no wall and there is some weird phenomenon outside the expanse of our point of the universe that cant be viewed because of the sheer distance is too great and/or the amount of particles creates a blanket that block anything visible beyond the expanse of our point of the universe.
there is probably a state particles eventuality just compile enough to create a new big bang else where in a process that takes an unimaginable amount of time to go through.
Anton did it occurred to you that technology out grown theory and you have lost your way?
Very interesting but also a little disappointing, LOL! I saw that title and initially thought maybe JWST saw a galaxy outside what we usually consider the observable universe!
Maybe when the ELT goes fully online...
JWST revealed the early universe was stranger than we thought
I've seen lots of things that weren't supposed to be visible to me.
Redshift of 13 ! Nearly twice the previous record holder, with a redshift of 7. 13.5billion lightyears away, but it's not there anymore. In fact, we've got no idea where these galaxies would be now. Nor do we know where our galaxy would have been back then, in relation to these observations.
Time & motion can be funny, at times. Could it be possible, that we may observe the birth of our own galaxy? With the path in line, we could even be our own gravity lens.
🚀🏴☠️🎸
I always thought that the universe is a giant Klien Bottle.
new drink game, drink one shot every time Anton says mistery
If this galaxy was doing things like that so long ago who knows what kind of stuff it might get up to these days? 🙂
Another cool video.
Thank you. and stay wonderful, Anton.
Like I said the big bang model is very broken. Get over it and do real science without bias.
I think the Big Bang Theory gives us an inspired stepping stone in our understanding. It would be interesting to hear what Einstein might say if he was around today! May he rest in peace.
@@seamusbrennan6302 well he believed in a static universe originally which i lean towards. Everything moving away from Everything may be an illusion that we dont understand like how we dont understand why or how light acts differently when being observed. It may be the universe appears different while being observed since the part that is observable is the light.
@@MrBigdaddy2ya "a static universe originally which i lean towards"
That is _strongly_ contradicted by _lots_ of observations. E. g. the existence of the CMBR. Or that quasars are seen only in a certain distance range. Or the age of stars. Or the abundance of the elements. etc.
"we dont understand why or how light acts differently when being observed"
Err, we do understand that. Try learning some quantum mechanics from actual textbooks instead of only from the internet.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 quantum mechanics is mostly theoretical. The cmb doesn't prove anything except that the universe is oddly uniformly the same temperature. The age of the stars is theoretical at this point. How about you not pass theories off as fact. Its a disservice to understanding
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 how you can you explain the fine tuned universe. The odds of this all happening by accident is 1 in a gazillion yet you want me to choose the 1 as being the most probably path to where we are. You can't even tell me where mass came from. Was it always there if so why is a big bag needed. We see structures in the universe that defy understanding the Big Ring, the cosmic web, the 27 million light year long jets that Anton talked about a few days ago. The more we look the less we understand because we are trying to fit everything into a neat box. Truth will do what it wants and will leave the truth deniers in the dust. Seems you like the taste of dust.
It's a mystery gang!
I enjoy these videos even though I disagree with so much of what's being said, because I don't believe the big bang theory. I don't believe the "universe" (whatever that is) ever had a "beginning" (whatever that is) rather, I believe the cosmos (all of everything in total) is infinitely old and just in case I need to explain what the word "infinite" means... it means there simply never was a beginning and there never will be an ending. I think the "red shift" has been completely and entirely misinterpreted and this has resulted in scientists (even the smart ones) actually believing in the absurd idea that time began one magical day 13.6 (or maybe it's 13.8... I hear a lot of variations on that theme) years ago. Then I hear geniuses telling me about their "multiverse" theory, which they have no way of explaining why all these expanding universes haven't blended into and through each other yet... I guess they all "began" about 13 point something years ago because all the drawings they show me of this multiverse depicts all the universes at about the same size. (and they don't yet see that as yet another telltale sign of how absurd this fantasy of theirs is) So I watch videos like this and I listen to what's being said about "the early universe" (whatever that is) and I just shake my head and smile... knowing one day in the hopefully not too distant future, humans will figure out that the whole idea of a "beginning of the universe" is just another religious type of fantasy and there never was any beginning. Get over it people, there's no "origin story" and "where did everything come from?" is a stupid leading question which presumes the impossible to be true and only asks "when did the magic happen?". The "big bang" is a magical event, just like Adam & Eve and the story of Noah and the Great Flood... which (news flash) never happened either. The Big Bang Theory is science's version of the Book of Genesis and this is one of those moments when both the religious people and the scientists are both wrong and for the same reason... because they can't handle the infinities. They can't even imagine the concepts of infinitely large, infinitely small, infinitely old or an infinite future... even though those are realities. I have spoken.
The beginning of wisdom is "I don't know".
how old is the big bang afterall? i tought 13.5 bi was ruled out.
As the densities of baryonic matter increase time slows, essentially at 'infinite' densities it ceases. So the idea that the universe has an 'age' only works in the same way absolute zero follows from projection of the slope of the ideal gas laws, the reality is that 'ideal' gases don't exist, all the ones we know collapse to liquids/solids at temperatures below the conditions used to define the 'ideal gas laws'. From where we are now 15-billion makes sense, but if you were projected back to the very early universe your present yard-stick would not be valid or applicable.
Its one of those 'infinities' that plagues us by division by zero.
Last estimate is 13.7 old, with an uncertainty of 200 million years.
@@marcofluminoI keep hearing 13.8B years ...
@@douglaswilkinson5700 I would like to know where you get that date, because the last measurement of the age of the universe is 13.7 Billions Years with a discrepancy of + - 200 Millions years.
In conservative sense of the term 'big bang' it refers to the nearly-uniform super-hot and dense state at around 10^-dozen seconds. The age since then is a well defined concept, it's value however is a fit to the model, so there's some % uncertainty
Before the described time when 'standard BigBang theory starts' the inflation is a promising theory, there's a lower bound estimated for its time span. Before 10^-afewdozen seconds theories are wilder, and it's far from clear that 'an initial singularity at t=0' was even real
Don't bother this light. It's very tired!
Thanks again sharing
So strange🤔, thanks Anton.
How can light from something that old be travelling all the whole age of thr universe without reaching us until now?? Preposterous.
??????? Because it came from an object which is very far away, the light took a long time to reach us. What's preposterous about that?!?
It's no coincidence Antons videos are released around the time of day my edibles are seriously kicking in and I can truly appreciate the universe. Thanks wonderful dude.
PS. let me know if you want a dozen of my cosmic cookies
Elden ring is really fun after an edible
LOL
God created the Universe to confound wise men.
Fantasy beings have nothing to do with it.
I am sure some people believe that Smurfs have something to do with it, but they have officially renounced all responsibility.
So the speed of light is not fixed is a big answer or the speed depends on the instrument or simulation makes everything better and 500 more questions. I love science and I hate dying just for that
Where are the actual measurements saying this?
It means we know absolutely nothing. You cannot count how many headlines this year have contradicted everything we know
@@drewharrison6433Anton is the source generally of this type of information. That is, he explains papers created by experts.
I am 70. I too am so happy to learn so much before I too go kaput. So much more yet will be discovered. Such an exciting time to be alive.
At my age, I look around and find a lot of people who take a lot for granted.
@@Ronaldo-vs3uhNonsense.
You call this science?
Could also be interesting to look in the opposite direction and see if we find something similar but much closer? Maybe seeing the wrapped light of the universe?
The more I read, the more I become convinced that the Big Bang timeline needs some finetuning.
I see no reason to believe there has only been one big bang.
@@carmenmccauley585 That is based on the accelerating expansion of the universe due to dark energy pushing galaxies apart. So there is no point of return.
The more we know, the more we don't know.
So much carbon and oxygen at z=13 is a big deal.
And z=14,32?
Sounds like a bubble of stuff/matter/gas inside or on the other side of a void just the right (humongous) size for the light to never hit more gas on the border of the void before reionization (and transparency) happened elsewhere to diffuse it into the Shadow Realm, I mean, into essentially background noise on the data.
In other words, the researchers could check that region in the CMB and look for voids or subdensity in that area, if that's there, at least how the light got to JWT's sensor so pristine gets, at least, partially explained.
As for why or how it reionized (seemingly) way earlier than what we see elsewhere, well, that's beyond what I study, so, yeah, my comment here is pure speculation on a topic I'm not versed enough to speculate properly: maybe, small islands of matter inside voids could have slightly different rates of evolution? Again, that's really beyond my pay grade, but, well, makes sense in my head that with less stuff nearby slowing down the pull of matter into that galaxy, it might end up developing just a tiny bit faster.
(If anyone reading this happens to write any paper on it, just give a shoutout to an anonymous dude having a brain fart online in there somewhere. :D)
How does the JWT know where to find these galaxies? Among all those billions of stars and other galaxies?....🤔 Cx
When you look that far, you’re seeing THE PAST. Not because it already happened in REAL TIME because it did, to some distant observer, but because the amount of time it would take to read light from there or get back there from here would result in that action/object being gone already. 😎🧠💯
if a black hole can eat light itself then does it eat dark matter ?
Probably. Once past the EH there is no path through spacetime that leads out (of the black hole.)
probably creates it
I don’t like title like this.
The light is exactly like it should, what is off is the understanding.
Saying a wierd star “shouldn’t exist” or similar titles imply that we know everything and find wierd stuff, but the stuff is not wierd. We just don’t have an idea what we are looking at.
So instead of saying that something is wierd, shouldn’t exist or is impossible you should say “we again found something that proves we basically know nothing”
But thats not clickbaity.
The red dot galaxies look a lot like quasars.
Wouldn't 'de-ionization' be a better term?
ionized -> neutralized -> reionized seems fine to me.
yyy
Jets pointing at us?
EUREKA EUREKA.. Now I know. That galaxias looks older than they could be becsuse we are see the light Reflexion of a younger galaxy that bounced back from the edge of the universe and only them arrived to us.
we are so persistant to try to understand something what extremely high intelligence created, we will probably never understand what universe is, who created it and whats the purpose of it, we are just not capable of understanding it.
Not sure I completely understand. Is it that neutral hydrogen emits Lyman alpha radiation, and if it is surrounded by lots of other neutral hydrogen, that absorbs the emitted Lyman alpha radiation and reemits it in random directions, so that the radiation would be highly scattered and not visible to us?
If you are a February 29th Birthday. This Galaxy is for you! The hidden secrets of this day is like the twilight zone. Anyway you might think I’m crazy but hey we all have viewpoints.
but on the ultraviolet? wasn't it that the JWST was for infrared? now you are confusing me.... even more...
Circles within circles. "It's science, Jim, but not as we we know it." See astronomy, Ptolemy to Kepler.
When dysfunctional biology gives you verbal aphasia, traverse the electric xylophone.
Physics: *has laws*
JWST: "And I took that personally."
I'm not sure how a re-ionized hydrogen bubble would provide a mechanism for Lyman alpha light from JADES-GS-z13-1-LA to propagate through the neutral hydrogen outside the bubble that would otherwise adsorb the wavelength. Would this be because the bubble is large enough for red-shifting of Lyman alpha light from the source to occur, sufficiently enough to bypass the absorption characteristics of the neutral hydrogen outside the bubble and allowing it to reach us? A very compelling video.
❤️👍
could be this is just a case of LENSING equals magnification? Not sure, Anton. Gonna look closer.
Hello Anton, I am wondering if you have talked about cwisej1249 on one of your videos already?