Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

skyandtelescope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 547 posts

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#241

Post by hutzlibu »

vl wrote: post #198
sebzim4500 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this says less about cosmology and more about the incredibly effectiveness of the standard model in the regime we can test directly on earth. If we compare ΛCDM to most other scientific theories it doesn't look so bad in terms of discrepancies. Certainly there are many unexplained effects in solid state physics, there isn't even an accepted explanation for why rubbing a balloon on your head makes it stick to…

>Certainly there are many unexplained effects in solid state physics Wait for it… Why ice is slippery? Usual explanation is completely incorrect. Actual semi-conclusive research just recently happened.

It is not, because ice has a smooth surface and that probably the surface layer melts a bit because your shoes are warm?

That would be my reasoning, but it likely seems to be wrong, well why?

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#242

Post by o_____________o »

vl wrote: post #198
sebzim4500 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this says less about cosmology and more about the incredibly effectiveness of the standard model in the regime we can test directly on earth. If we compare ΛCDM to most other scientific theories it doesn't look so bad in terms of discrepancies. Certainly there are many unexplained effects in solid state physics, there isn't even an accepted explanation for why rubbing a balloon on your head makes it stick to…

>Certainly there are many unexplained effects in solid state physics Wait for it… Why ice is slippery? Usual explanation is completely incorrect. Actual semi-conclusive research just recently happened.

You're talking about the "2D gas vs liquid" discussion?

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#243

Post by xp84 »

bcaulfield wrote: post #71

Great news. Finding stuff that doesn't fit into the current model and we need smart people to get to work understanding may be the surest sign that the JWST is invaluable.

Same - I really like seeing things like this.

Not only because it means we're about to learn some big stuff, but also because it would be completely *preposterous* if humans at our puny stage of development had already correctly figured out every last detail about insanely complex things like the exact size, age, and origin and age of galaxy-sized things that developed tens of billions of years ago, billions of light-years away from the tiny rock we stand on. Getting things wrong shows that people are actually doing science honestly!

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#244

Post by yreg »

UltraViolence wrote: post #189

So there could've been civilizations that are literally BILLIONS of years ahead of us? Imagine what these people know about the universe! This reminds me of the Star Wars lead-in: "A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away." It really could've happened you know!

Earth came quite late to the party and it spawned life relatively soon after.

That's why it's strange we haven't discovered any Dyson spheres/swarms (in any galaxy).

Either life is indeed absurdly rare, or Dysons are impractical for some reason, or there is a way to mask heat.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#245

Post by hutzlibu »

teawrecks wrote: post #118
jackmott42 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is fair to characterize cosmology as not making progress no. Stuff is far away and occluded and hard to measure and see. Each improvement in observation causes a need to refine previous ideas, as expected. There are of course the two big mysteries that have lingered for a long time: Dark Matter and Dark Energy, but other areas of physics have lingering mysteries as well.

I almost had the same reaction, but technically they didn't say anything about cosmology not making progress. It's entirely reasonable to assume a scientifically minded person describing a field as "piling up question marks" means they think it's making a LOT of progress. Imagine a field that answers questions more often than it finds new ones; that'd be a pretty stagnant field to be in.

"Imagine a field that answers questions more often than it finds new ones; that'd be a pretty stagnant field to be in."

Funnily enough, that's what the science community of the ending 19. century thought about physics, before they started to look deeper.

Max Planck was advised against a career in physics, because:

"In this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes."

He rather found some more holes.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#247

Post by micromacrofoot »

godshatter wrote: post #229
chrisweekly wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wait, no, a big bang doesn't happen IN spacetime, it IS spacetime per se. that's part of what makes it so confusing.

What is spacetime expanding into?

as far as we know spacetime is everything that exists

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#248

Post by throwawaymaths »

rqtwteye wrote: post #236
rcme wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every theory is a retrofit. A useful theory is also predictive.

MOND is not compatible with some observations. It and dark will probably be tweaked until both agree with observations. At that point they will be the same.

That's a false equivalence. MOND has made several predictions before they were observed (external field effect, linear Tully fisher relationship, early galaxies). I think LCDM's made fewer if any predictions.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#249

Post by thinkmcfly »

brap wrote: post #221
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #151

I'm going to be very amused if the Steady State Model - an unpopular relic from the 1940s - turns out to be correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model

Since everyone is mentioning their favorite whacky theories, mine is the one that says within every particle is a whole universe, made up of particles with their own universes and so on, and what we call our universe is really just a particle in an even bigger universe. And what if all of those universes were actually the same universe, like some infinite recursion? Is there a name for this?

I dunno, I felt like this was a huge cop out in the movie Men in Black

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#250

Post by AstixAndBelix »

User23 wrote: post #155
college_physics wrote: post #59

I don't know if this instance qualifies as one, but I think its fair to say that cosmology is the one domain of "fundamental" physics where "discrepancies" or question marks keep piling up and not really resolving. It the pattern of previous science revolutions repeats, there could come a point where reinterpreting the large existing body of knowledge using a different paradigm would explain an number of "oddities" i…

There's a joke that calling Computer Science Computer Science is like calling Astronomy Telescope Science, but part of what makes it funny is the ring of truth to it. Our instruments really do limit our observations. The advantage Computer Scientists have is that we can glimpse a world of Platonic Forms[1], where Functions, and Sets, and Information exist, or something close enough for government work, merely through…

Computer Science doesn’t get the pass, unfortunately. First of all because it’s a branch of maths, so in reality it doesn’t have any instruments to worry about. Secondly, applied CS relies on an incredibly simple instrument: binary logic gates. The computers we have today are just a mesh of stuff that flips on and off with no intermediate states. That’s pretty primitive as a means of expression and computation compared with the rest of the universe
Post reply on HN