James Webb telescope finds ancient galaxy larger than our Milky Way

It's no secret that I'm a big fan of what evidence-based science can teach us. Standard cosmology has been showing signs of strain for various reasons, including the inability to obtain consistent measurements of the Hubble constant. Moreover, incoming evidence from the James Webb Space Telescope has been challenging to reconcile for some time, and now, some evidence is emerging that could significantly challenge existing theories. It will likely take the scientific community a long time to fully process this, but I imagine it eventually will mark a pause in attempts to explain everything, at least for now.

https://www.space.com/ancient-galaxy-upe...ents-65358

The galaxy, called ZF-UDS-7329, contains more stars than the Milky Way, despite having formed only 800 million years into the universe's 13.8 billion-year life span.

It's no secret that I'm a big fan of what evidence-based science can teach us. Standard cosmology has been showing signs of strain for various reasons, including the inability to obtain consistent measurements of the Hubble constant. Moreover, incoming evidence from the James Webb Space Telescope has been challenging to reconcile for some time, and now, some evidence is emerging that could significantly challenge existing theories. It will likely take the scientific community a long time to fully process this, but I imagine it eventually will mark a pause in attempts to explain everything, at least for now.

https://www.space.com/ancient-galaxy-upe...ents-65358

We need more of this.  More questions and less "answers."  If we are honest with ourselves, the answers we have or think we have should only produce more questions.

It's no secret that I'm a big fan of what evidence-based science can teach us. Standard cosmology has been showing signs of strain for various reasons, including the inability to obtain consistent measurements of the Hubble constant. Moreover, incoming evidence from the James Webb Space Telescope has been challenging to reconcile for some time, and now, some evidence is emerging that could significantly challenge existing theories. It will likely take the scientific community a long time to fully process this, but I imagine it eventually will mark a pause in attempts to explain everything, at least for now.

https://www.space.com/ancient-galaxy-upe...ents-65358

It's an interesting observation of human behavior that these cosmology researchers automatically took the most conservative interpretation of this new data, the minimum possible change from the current entrenched Big Bang theory, that they just need to revisit early Universe galaxy formation theory. They automatically assumed that the Big Bang happened and explained the universal background radiation and the cosmological red shift, and still occured 13.8 billion years ago, so any explanation of the new data just had to be within those confines. They ignored the possibility that the explanation for the discrepancy was that it was the Big Bang theory that was at fault and that it really occurred earlier in time, or not at all.

From the article:

"This pushes the boundaries of our current understanding of how galaxies form and evolve," study co-author Themiya Nanayakkara, an astronomer at the Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, said in the statement. "The key question now is how they form so fast very early in the universe, and what mysterious mechanisms lead to stopping them forming stars abruptly when the rest of the universe is doing so."

The researchers' next steps will be to search for more galaxies like this. If they find any, it could seriously contradict prior ideas of how galaxies formed, they said.

I guess I could argue that this is just the normal application of the standard protocol of science, where conflicting new data is evaluated according to the current scientific paradigm to most economically incorporate the new data into the current paradigm. The minimum effort path, assuming a high probability that the current paradigm is the truth. Unfortunately it just doesn't work, and impedes progress, when the prevailing paradigm is really false.

It's an interesting observation of human behavior that these cosmology researchers automatically took the most conservative interpretation of this new data, the minimum possible change from the current entrenched Big Bang theory, that they just need to revisit early Universe galaxy formation theory. They automatically assumed that the Big Bang happened and explained the universal background radiation and the cosmological red shift, and still occured 13.8 billion years ago, so any explanation of the new data just had to be within those confines. They ignored the possibility that the explanation for the discrepancy was that it was the Big Bang theory that was at fault and that it really occurred earlier in time, or not at all.

From the article:

I guess I could argue that this is just the normal application of the standard protocol of science, where conflicting new data is evaluated according to the current scientific paradigm to most economically incorporate the new data into the current paradigm. The minimum effort path, assuming a high probability that the current paradigm is the truth. Unfortunately it just doesn't work, and impedes progress, when the prevailing paradigm is really false.

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) cannot directly refute the Big Bang theory; it can only gather data that may present discrepancies with current models. It is impossible to observe light 'older' than the universe itself, as interpreting the cosmic light JWST observes is deeply entwined with models that use the age of the universe as a fundamental parameter. Given these limitations, the interpretation being discussed appears reasonable. The intriguing aspect, as mentioned, is the potential failure to integrate new data into the existing framework, leading to what I believe will be a paradigm shift. This concept, defined by physicist Thomas Kuhn in 1962, signifies a fundamental transformation in the basic principles of a scientific discipline—in this case, cosmology. Such a shift could challenge the prevailing scientific hubris evident in works like 'A Universe from Nothing' and 'The God Delusion.'

I anticipate that reaching this milestone will take years and likely require more advanced instruments to gather and verify further anomalies. Despite the challenges, I am confident that such a development is on the horizon.

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) cannot directly refute the Big Bang theory; it can only gather data that may present discrepancies with current models. It is impossible to observe light 'older' than the universe itself, as interpreting the cosmic light JWST observes is deeply entwined with models that use the age of the universe as a fundamental parameter. Given these limitations, the interpretation being discussed appears reasonable. The intriguing aspect, as mentioned, is the potential failure to integrate new data into the existing framework, leading to what I believe will be a paradigm shift. This concept, defined by physicist Thomas Kuhn in 1962, signifies a fundamental transformation in the basic principles of a scientific discipline—in this case, cosmology. Such a shift could challenge the prevailing scientific hubris evident in works like 'A Universe from Nothing' and 'The God Delusion.'

I anticipate that reaching this milestone will take years and likely require more advanced instruments to gather and verify further anomalies. Despite the challenges, I am confident that such a development is on the horizon.

Super interesting sbu.  I just so appreciate your sentiment in bold.  In science, in politics, in social discourse.  Hubris, to me, is THE enemy.