Oxygen atoms discovered in most distant known galaxy(eso.org)
eso.org
Oxygen atoms discovered in most distant known galaxy
https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2507/
188 comments
It fits the theme that, according to Webb, the universe developed a lot more quickly in what we think were the first billion years... Most likely the "first billion years" were more like five billion years.
There is growing evidence that doesn't fit the current model. It's funny how 'age is just a number' may be empirically true in a very existential sense.
Sorry, but can you elaborate on that? In what sense are you thinking of?
In the sense that the point of “age” is supposed to indicate some kind of progress by which cohorts can be compared and classified into discrete groups.
But increasingly, there is no correlation between age and specific developmental stages. It is merely a number that indicates how long something has been around but not what its current status may be.
But increasingly, there is no correlation between age and specific developmental stages. It is merely a number that indicates how long something has been around but not what its current status may be.
this doesn't seem to provide much of a justification for an extraordinary claim like "the widely accepted number for the age of the universe is wrong by 4 billion years"?
officer she told me she was 4 billion years old
This galaxy in particular must be one of the first galaxies ever formed. If galaxies are more mature than initially thought, what does this imply about our previous models and imply about what might actually be happening?
There seems to be a large region of the universe, beyond furthest edges of the observable, but "in front of" the CMB, that is already outside of our past light cone due to expansion of the universe.
To add, Earth is only ~4.5 billion years old, the universe is 13.7 and possibly double that, so earth is only 1/3 the age of the universe. It took a lot of big stars going supernova to pollute the galaxy with enough dirt to make rocky planets, and in all that meantime, everything has been flying apart, with a significant chunk of it already so far away and expanding away even faster, there is measurable difference between the observable universe and the "whole universe."
I don't know if there was just a crap ton of blue hypergiant stars in the early universe that crank through the fusion ladder in a couple million years, it wouldn't surprise me.
There are the chemistry problems but the big one is "how did supermassive black holes get so big?" Webb is finding what seem to be huge black holes way back but the black hole problem has been around for at least 25 years if not more.
Supernovae can create black holes in the 10's of solar mass range and they can merge but it would take a long time for those to find each other to merge to the 60 billion solar mass range. You might have processes that make 10^5 solar mass black holes but it would still take a lot of time for those to find each other and merge to make supermassive black holes.
Supernovae can create black holes in the 10's of solar mass range and they can merge but it would take a long time for those to find each other to merge to the 60 billion solar mass range. You might have processes that make 10^5 solar mass black holes but it would still take a lot of time for those to find each other and merge to make supermassive black holes.
Note the theory in this release is the oxygen is from a mature star releasing heavier elements, not plant life.
I thought oxygen detection was extremely difficult, they must have better methods now.
adding:
https://news.arizona.edu/news/how-next-gen-telescopes-could-...
I thought oxygen detection was extremely difficult, they must have better methods now.
adding:
https://news.arizona.edu/news/how-next-gen-telescopes-could-...
Oxygen detection on specific exoplanets is very difficult, unless the planet happens to pass between its star and Earth so we can see light passing through its atmosphere. Oxygen detection across an entire galaxy, not as hard.
Oxygen detection in space isn't hard, the article in question seems to be an attempt at detecting oxygen on an exoplanet which is massively hard.
Now, conversely, oxygen detection in galaxies/around stars is difficult for another reason. It doesn't want to remain free oxygen and will gladly bind with any other atoms/molecules it runs into.
https://now.northropgrumman.com/what-happens-to-oxygen-in-sp...
Now, conversely, oxygen detection in galaxies/around stars is difficult for another reason. It doesn't want to remain free oxygen and will gladly bind with any other atoms/molecules it runs into.
https://now.northropgrumman.com/what-happens-to-oxygen-in-sp...
Technically, all oxygen is from stars. Plants merely recombine chemically already-existing oxygen.
I'm always fascinated by the posters here who insist on second-guessing the writers and the scientists who spend their whole lives studying a topic like this.
No one needs to read your post fessing up to your profound ignorance and the fact that you didn't really read the link.
No one needs to read your post fessing up to your profound ignorance and the fact that you didn't really read the link.
I second this, and it tends to be a sitewide issue. HN has really changed over the past 5+ years: went from healthy or interesting skepticism to reddit-style snarkiness and shitposting.
From the guidelines [1]:
> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.
(With that last sentence linking to 9 examples in [1].)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.
(With that last sentence linking to 9 examples in [1].)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You don't think it's changed? You've been here about as long as we have. At some point you can't rely on it being a noob illusion if a place actually does change. The guideline is not a magic incantation that prevents it from never becoming false. Snarky replies used to be routinely downvoted swiftly, now they are not.
I don't, Meta discussions like this have happened since forever on HN. And attempting to curb them is a good thing.
OPs "comment" on what should be correct behavior on HN is now the top comment and surpasses by far the few people that he is critiquing. And hence our discussion now is all about this meta thing, which means we are not talking about the article.
that is not new
OPs "comment" on what should be correct behavior on HN is now the top comment and surpasses by far the few people that he is critiquing. And hence our discussion now is all about this meta thing, which means we are not talking about the article.
that is not new
I mean, I can scroll through the hacker news history to 2016 when I started reading, and the comment quality and submission quality is much higher IMO.
As I've said before, there's a reason why my entire social group of programmers (and a lot of programmers I've met from outside it) refers to this pejoratively as The Orange Site.
As I've said before, there's a reason why my entire social group of programmers (and a lot of programmers I've met from outside it) refers to this pejoratively as The Orange Site.
Might be weird-colored glasses, but I've been here slightly longer and no, I don't think it changed much either.
(Or it could be that I changed along with it, so I don't notice.)
(Or it could be that I changed along with it, so I don't notice.)
It definitely feels much more homogeneous than it did 10+ years ago. I notice now that in discussions on for example women's rights we exclusively have men talking about how they perceive women to be affected, but "back in my day" it was not uncommon for actual women to share their perspectives. HN has become such a cold house for anyone outside the preferred demographic that they seem to have almost entirely left.
The downvoting here (as well as comment scoring) is probably my least liked thing about the site. It exacerbates the already prominent issue of hivemind and seems to actively lower the quality of discussion. People seem to mostly vote based on emotional reaction. On paper, a downvote just doubles the value of a vote. Meanwhile the graying of comments that never deserved to be downvoted to begin with is infuriating and seems to mostly stifle interesting conversation.
Personally, I advocate for abolishing the downvote and the scoring and switching to randomized comment order.
Personally, I advocate for abolishing the downvote and the scoring and switching to randomized comment order.
I'd argue ranking comments per se isn't the issue, it's whether the culture is preserved that encourages useful application of the voting system. Whether any community can preserve their desired culture is arguably the most important factor and it's what the grandparent post is essentially referring to.
On HN the main goal of upranking is if one comment is more interesting/informative than another (or as a group test to see how robust its argument is if the voter has no experience to judge directly). Downranking ime isn't meant to be the method used shift the order of comments but rather to discourage a post that doesn't fit the HN culture/guidelines. OTOH most popular gamified discussion systems don't discourage use of reactionary downvoting, which can creep into other posting cultures.
The problem the grandparent post raises is if signals that voting users would ordinarily use to shape the continued posting culture (eg: downranking comments that don't fit in tone/substance) aren't used like they were intended to be and if the guidelines discourage meta discussion then there isn't any other avenue to inform users what the desired culture should be in practice.
Certainly one can post non-meta comments showing what type of comments one would like (and thankfully for most strictly tech topics here it's still reasonable) but if the culture shifts enough among the silent voting users then the concern is this erodes the quality of discussion as the signals for what is wanted/not wanted get skewed.
On HN the main goal of upranking is if one comment is more interesting/informative than another (or as a group test to see how robust its argument is if the voter has no experience to judge directly). Downranking ime isn't meant to be the method used shift the order of comments but rather to discourage a post that doesn't fit the HN culture/guidelines. OTOH most popular gamified discussion systems don't discourage use of reactionary downvoting, which can creep into other posting cultures.
The problem the grandparent post raises is if signals that voting users would ordinarily use to shape the continued posting culture (eg: downranking comments that don't fit in tone/substance) aren't used like they were intended to be and if the guidelines discourage meta discussion then there isn't any other avenue to inform users what the desired culture should be in practice.
Certainly one can post non-meta comments showing what type of comments one would like (and thankfully for most strictly tech topics here it's still reasonable) but if the culture shifts enough among the silent voting users then the concern is this erodes the quality of discussion as the signals for what is wanted/not wanted get skewed.
Ah yes, wise words from the inflammatory DOGE poster who’s getting flagged and downvoted.
[deleted]
I’m not arguing either side. Just saying that the meta discussion is a discussion that the guidelines try to discourage.
IOW, it’s not really relevant to the article, so it’s not promoting curious, interesting discussion.
So both this discussion as well as the snarky comments you’re arguing against are both not following the guidelines of trying to keep discussion curious and interesting.
IOW, it’s not really relevant to the article, so it’s not promoting curious, interesting discussion.
So both this discussion as well as the snarky comments you’re arguing against are both not following the guidelines of trying to keep discussion curious and interesting.
There’s always been some of that but it does feel like it’s getting worse. I think there’s a general shift in how people approach Skinner-ized apps and social media, where a couple of generations have been trained to prioritize a number going up, but also something about how politics became both post-factual and unavoidable even in communities which used to avoid it, all of which has driven a lot of former contributors away.
I’m not sure how to rebalance things - and certainly won’t claim to be perfect about not taking the bait myself – but it seems to be slowly starving a lot of communities which don’t have some in-person anchoring.
I’m not sure how to rebalance things - and certainly won’t claim to be perfect about not taking the bait myself – but it seems to be slowly starving a lot of communities which don’t have some in-person anchoring.
> Skinner-ized
What does this mean? A quick Google search didn't help me
What does this mean? A quick Google search didn't help me
Arranged like a Skinner box -- something which dispenses reward stimuli for desired behaviours with the aim of maximizing those behaviours.
Interestingly, a Skinner box can be made to dispense rewards randomly after a while, or stop dispensing them entirely -- but the desired behaviour is likely to continue. Think doomscrolling, slot machines, loot boxes, dating apps, etc.
A worthwhile survey of this I was introduced to in my undergrad: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691160887/ad...
Interestingly, a Skinner box can be made to dispense rewards randomly after a while, or stop dispensing them entirely -- but the desired behaviour is likely to continue. Think doomscrolling, slot machines, loot boxes, dating apps, etc.
A worthwhile survey of this I was introduced to in my undergrad: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691160887/ad...
mlekoszek answered very well, so I won’t duplicate their comment but I will note that I used to work with a bunch of neuroscientists and a number of grad students were recruited by tech companies specifically to use their knowledge of human behaviour and addition to boost “engagement” and revenue. There was some talk about ethics but even back then people knew those companies meant it about as much as big tobacco had.
You might read the guidelines, much older than five years, about saying HN has changed, and also saying it's more like reddit.
I don't think I've ever been on a forum that doesn't have comments to that effect regularly.
"It was better a few years ago, it's all going to hell now, we're becoming Reddit/4Chan/Slashdot"
It's the internet forum version of "the youth has gotten lazy, it weren't like this when I were a lad"
"It was better a few years ago, it's all going to hell now, we're becoming Reddit/4Chan/Slashdot"
It's the internet forum version of "the youth has gotten lazy, it weren't like this when I were a lad"
I was on usenet in 1995 but I have heard that was too late and usenet already sucked then.
In all fairness too, my 17 year old self who knew basically nothing about the world ,really did add absolutely nothing of value to the usenet discussions I participated in besides noise. Of course, at the time I thought the complete opposite.
The thing that amuses me most is at the time there would have been a lot of "pro communism" in my responses on anything society related even though I knew absolutely nothing about communism and even less about economics as a whole.
I think this is just the way semi-anon discussions with big age and generation gaps go.
In all fairness too, my 17 year old self who knew basically nothing about the world ,really did add absolutely nothing of value to the usenet discussions I participated in besides noise. Of course, at the time I thought the complete opposite.
The thing that amuses me most is at the time there would have been a lot of "pro communism" in my responses on anything society related even though I knew absolutely nothing about communism and even less about economics as a whole.
I think this is just the way semi-anon discussions with big age and generation gaps go.
If you live long enough, you might look back at your understanding now and say the same thing. Maybe what we should learn is not to be so certain about our current knowledge.
> In all fairness too, my 17 year old self who knew basically nothing about the world ,really did add absolutely nothing of value to the usenet discussions I participated in besides noise. Of course, at the time I thought the complete opposite.
Me too!
Me too!
> I was on usenet in 1995 but I have heard that was too late and usenet already sucked then.
BBS were cool(er) :-)
BBS were cool(er) :-)
[deleted]
This is refreshing to hear compared to all of the "HN is becoming Reddit, omg!" comments and threads that pop up every couple weeks.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=380385
From 2008 :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=380385
From 2008 :)
Unless, of course, it continually has been becoming Reddit, but Reddit has been constantly changing too ;)
[deleted]
That's hardly isolated to this site. COVID did a number on us.
Fwiw, people have been saying this since the site started. Don't worry. There will always be a safe space for rich assholes to divorce themselves from reality and romanticize their exploitation.
Fwiw, people have been saying this since the site started. Don't worry. There will always be a safe space for rich assholes to divorce themselves from reality and romanticize their exploitation.
I'm probably guilty of making comments that read this way at times, but it's almost always out of curiosity and a dash of invoking Cunningham's law.
Lately I've started feeding my questions into LLMs to explore these ideas. Given that I will almost certainly never make a decision where an improper understanding of astrophysics is at fault, I'm willing to run the risk of hallucinations leading me to improper conclusions. :)
For the morbidly curious: https://chatgpt.com/share/67dc94a3-07c8-800c-bdbf-039dd2ce50...
(It's funny, I've seen people say that they generally don't even bother with spell checking questions to LLMs because it doesn't seem to make any difference. I was tempted to rerun this before posting to fix the disorganized thoughts in my questions, but I ain't got time for that.)
Lately I've started feeding my questions into LLMs to explore these ideas. Given that I will almost certainly never make a decision where an improper understanding of astrophysics is at fault, I'm willing to run the risk of hallucinations leading me to improper conclusions. :)
For the morbidly curious: https://chatgpt.com/share/67dc94a3-07c8-800c-bdbf-039dd2ce50...
(It's funny, I've seen people say that they generally don't even bother with spell checking questions to LLMs because it doesn't seem to make any difference. I was tempted to rerun this before posting to fix the disorganized thoughts in my questions, but I ain't got time for that.)
I love this chat. This is exactly the kind of chat I’ve had with ChatGPT about things like Native American reservations, their history, etc.
Stuff like this is what I love most about these LLMs.
As someone who minored in astronomy and especially loved stuff about stellar life cycles, I didn’t see any red flags in what you were told.
Stuff like this is what I love most about these LLMs.
As someone who minored in astronomy and especially loved stuff about stellar life cycles, I didn’t see any red flags in what you were told.
Nice! It's like having a patient neighbor that knows a lot about some topic but, you know, don't bet your life on it being accurate haha.
Thanks!!!
Thanks!!!
The acronym RTFA is probably older than the mean age of the posters here, for a reason
[deleted]
[deleted]
> the fact that you didn't really read the link
I think this is due to a big flaw in the link aggregator website model. In the forums of yore, we had a post creating a discussion that was a must read, and everything was contained in the same place. Links were part of the post but as side dishes sprinkled over the OP.
In the aggregator model, which is arguably a dumbed-down model of forum, there is no OP. Or more accurately, what can be interpreted as the post is the title of linked content, not the linked content itself. Clicking and reading to an external link is a burden and a disconnection to the discussion on the aggregator. In the end, a lot of discussion occurs based only on the content visible in the aggregator, that is the title. One might regret it, but it's the format pushing this behavior.
Also since there is an endless stream of content instead of threads being dumped, I feel comments are more fire and forget.
PS: did not read the linked post.
I think this is due to a big flaw in the link aggregator website model. In the forums of yore, we had a post creating a discussion that was a must read, and everything was contained in the same place. Links were part of the post but as side dishes sprinkled over the OP.
In the aggregator model, which is arguably a dumbed-down model of forum, there is no OP. Or more accurately, what can be interpreted as the post is the title of linked content, not the linked content itself. Clicking and reading to an external link is a burden and a disconnection to the discussion on the aggregator. In the end, a lot of discussion occurs based only on the content visible in the aggregator, that is the title. One might regret it, but it's the format pushing this behavior.
Also since there is an endless stream of content instead of threads being dumped, I feel comments are more fire and forget.
PS: did not read the linked post.
Science cannot be trusted anymore. Journals don't validate anything they submit. Departments are rewarded by how much money they wring out of the government, not by whether what they say is true. Next week they'll publish another paper about how they were wrong.
Also you don't sound "fascinated", so if you're complaining at least be honest about it. There are many more descriptive words than "fascinated".
Also you don't sound "fascinated", so if you're complaining at least be honest about it. There are many more descriptive words than "fascinated".
> Next week they'll publish another paper about how they were wrong.
Isn't that what's they're supposed to do? "Hey we found this thing, here's how we did it." Next week: "Yeah I checked your data and got different results, let's figure out what's different." A few months/years later: "We've figured out where the problems were and now have a better understanding of this."
Isn't that what's they're supposed to do? "Hey we found this thing, here's how we did it." Next week: "Yeah I checked your data and got different results, let's figure out what's different." A few months/years later: "We've figured out where the problems were and now have a better understanding of this."
Yeah - people forget that the true advantage science has over other methodologies is that it accepts that what is believed today could be proved wrong tomorrow by new data.
There are no absolutes, we're just formulating theories to best fit what data we have now, and, if new conflicting data (or even existing data that was misunderstood/misread/misclassified as being irrelevant) disproves our theory we formulate a new one to try and account for the extra data.
There are no absolutes, we're just formulating theories to best fit what data we have now, and, if new conflicting data (or even existing data that was misunderstood/misread/misclassified as being irrelevant) disproves our theory we formulate a new one to try and account for the extra data.
Someone I know put this well: "science is just as gullible at following the latest trends. The difference is it corrects itself, where trends never do."
I like that - and it's true, eventually science will correct itself, even in the face of ridicule from its own stalwarts (eg. the way that Robert Atkins was treated by the scientific community, right up until his theory [which was recycled] was proved with empirical data)
I think this is a real problem but your post is an exaggeration. There are cases of fraud in science. There is a reproducibility crisis in some areas. There are political angles and rent seeking wrt grants. But how widespread is it? You're assuming it's close to 100% without evidence. I don't claim to have the exact number but intuitively yours is extraordinary (so it would need extraordinary evidence). I think these issues affect some areas much more than others and some regions more than others. I still believe science is the best way of enquiry for the natural world.
I'm not assuming it's close to 100%, I'm countering the GPs criticism of people who are skeptical about the title. He's saying "how dare you question these science experts!?!" And I'm saying the reason people do that is because scandals like LK99 erode the credibility.
I think on average trusting the experts is the right thing. And by the way LK99 is not even particularly damning, as far as we know it was science working as intended
> Science cannot be trusted anymore. Journals don't validate anything they submit. Departments are rewarded by how much money they wring out of the government, not by whether what they say is true. Next week they'll publish another paper about how they were wrong.
What do you feel when you post that?
What do you feel when you post that?
I feel like my tax dollars are wasted and the college students are being lied to with their ever-increasing tuition that somehow promises them a future when their departments are led by liars.
Those are not emotions. What I meant is (I don't mean to ask twice, I'm just clarifying), what drives these comments? Anger? Hate? Is it for the lolz?
It sounds like you just don’t like American universities. Good news is you don’t have to attend them or send your kids to them. There are plenty of universities in the world that are not American.
Oxygen is everywhere.
Hydrogen is everywhere.
The possibilities are interesting.
Hydrogen is everywhere.
The possibilities are interesting.
Given how simple Water is and how readily available it's components are, it's inevitable there are many planets with vast oceans.
At least 30% of the bodies in _our_ solar system have vast oceans.
You are right, it's inevitable.
You are right, it's inevitable.
Water oceans? It’s far far from 30% isn’t it? Is there an image of a single water ocean not on Earth?
Due to some counterintuitive geothermal reasons, it's likely that three of the four Galilean moons (of Jupiter) as well as Titan (Saturn's largest moon) all sport significant underground oceans of liquid water.
For example, despite being much smaller than the Earth, Ganymede is projected to harbor more liquid water than all of Earth's oceans combined.
(Whether this adds up to 30% depends heavily on what you start counting as a "body")
For example, despite being much smaller than the Earth, Ganymede is projected to harbor more liquid water than all of Earth's oceans combined.
(Whether this adds up to 30% depends heavily on what you start counting as a "body")
I did not do the math at all correct. (I'm on vacation and apparently left most of my brain cells at home.)
I stupidly counted:
9 planets total
2 "ocean" moons (Enceladus + Europa) + Earth = 3 bodies with water. 9 divided by 3 = 30%
So that is my half thinking.
I stupidly counted:
9 planets total
2 "ocean" moons (Enceladus + Europa) + Earth = 3 bodies with water. 9 divided by 3 = 30%
So that is my half thinking.
There is an ocean somewhere near Jupyter or Saturn.
I would be shocked if it were not found everywhere.
I'd be more worried if there was a whole bunch of carbon dioxide.
Funny you say that because this article just came out the other day
https://www.sciencealert.com/jwst-detects-carbon-dioxide-out...
https://www.sciencealert.com/jwst-detects-carbon-dioxide-out...
Finding oxygen in a galaxy this young is pretty wild
Why?
probably because it depends on the star types that produce oxygen; it takes awhile until these stars form from previous in sequence. https://science.nasa.gov/universe/stars/types/#neutron-stars
Because oxygen is formed in stars and then dispersed when they die (like in supernovae), so finding it in such a young galaxy means that at least one generation of massive stars had already formed and died
Off topic:
- Is the big bang theory the scientific consensus on the origin and evolution of the universe ?
- What are the alternatives ?
- Is the big bang theory the scientific consensus on the origin and evolution of the universe ?
- What are the alternatives ?
Big bang theory really a term describing the moment the universe started and not the evolution and how things evolved with time which have more questions than answer. The standard model of cosmology is the most accepted theory about universe. But you can't have knowledge about anything before the singularity. Actually we don't even know for sure what happens in the seconds after that because we need a much more powerful colliders than what we have now to produce the same conditions. But there are many theories about what could have happened.
[deleted]
Add to it we need much more reliable ways to detect super weak neutrinos. If we had that ability we could see into the first seconds of the universe whereas the universe was dark to light for hundreds of thousands of years.
I mean, there is at the very least a theory that at very small levels, the quantum effects take over and we’re actually looking at a cyclic bang/crunch model. It’s literally discussed in A Brief History of Time. But this is more of a refinement.
Consider the bbt as a collection of observations and models that are independently validated. As each of those components reach increasingly accurate representations of what we observe, the bbt improves.
In this way, there can be no alternative as there is no alternative to music theory. Some people may have a very narrow view of music theory, but it truly encompasses every model we accept about aspects of music.
Tldr- the questions can't be answered because the bbt is a not a theory like "THE theory of relativity". The "theory" is at the end of the term which denotes a collection and not a specific model.
In this way, there can be no alternative as there is no alternative to music theory. Some people may have a very narrow view of music theory, but it truly encompasses every model we accept about aspects of music.
Tldr- the questions can't be answered because the bbt is a not a theory like "THE theory of relativity". The "theory" is at the end of the term which denotes a collection and not a specific model.
Big Bang Theory is a bunch of really solid observations and hypotheses mixed with a bunch of open questions, even about the fundamental nature of forces.
It was only 30 years ago that we discovered what we call now dark energy. And it turns out that within that short time frame we have multiple ways of measuring the amount of it, and those methods agree. There is more dark energy than dark matter, and that the visible matter is even a small fraction of the dark matter. But even with this discovery of the acceleration of expansion of the universe, the core big bang theory holds.
There are many alternatives to the predominant and not-yet-accepted-as-true Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model of physics, such as Timescapes, but none of them have enough evidence behind them to be considered serious alternatives at the moment.
Things like the Baryonic Acoustic Oscillation theoretical predictions, that are visualized in the spacing of galaxies, are literally mind blowing to me. Theoretical physics predicted how matter would behave when it's so hot and dense that none of it can even form atoms, and it predicts the structure of all sorts of things, even the variability we observe in the cosmic microwave background.
TL;DR The depth and consistency of observation that point to a big bang are stunning. But we still have so much we don't know about the particulars, and the fundamental forces.
It was only 30 years ago that we discovered what we call now dark energy. And it turns out that within that short time frame we have multiple ways of measuring the amount of it, and those methods agree. There is more dark energy than dark matter, and that the visible matter is even a small fraction of the dark matter. But even with this discovery of the acceleration of expansion of the universe, the core big bang theory holds.
There are many alternatives to the predominant and not-yet-accepted-as-true Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model of physics, such as Timescapes, but none of them have enough evidence behind them to be considered serious alternatives at the moment.
Things like the Baryonic Acoustic Oscillation theoretical predictions, that are visualized in the spacing of galaxies, are literally mind blowing to me. Theoretical physics predicted how matter would behave when it's so hot and dense that none of it can even form atoms, and it predicts the structure of all sorts of things, even the variability we observe in the cosmic microwave background.
TL;DR The depth and consistency of observation that point to a big bang are stunning. But we still have so much we don't know about the particulars, and the fundamental forces.
> Off topic:
>
> - Is the big bang theory the scientific consensus on the origin and evolution of the universe ?
Yes, because this theory currently best describes our observations, but there are still many anomalies. Like dark matter / energy / quantum physics / axis of evil.
> - What are the alternatives ?
The big crunch, where the universe ultimately shrinks again. You also have a theory that it expands and shrinks and loops like that. You also have several string theories where they propose that the whole universe is a hologram projection of a higher dimension.
But these theories are lacking certain important explanations of certain observations we have, that most people still keep the Big Bang Theory as the most accurate.
Yes, because this theory currently best describes our observations, but there are still many anomalies. Like dark matter / energy / quantum physics / axis of evil.
> - What are the alternatives ?
The big crunch, where the universe ultimately shrinks again. You also have a theory that it expands and shrinks and loops like that. You also have several string theories where they propose that the whole universe is a hologram projection of a higher dimension.
But these theories are lacking certain important explanations of certain observations we have, that most people still keep the Big Bang Theory as the most accurate.
The first four explanations of illustrations in my book delve into your off-topic point and bring it back on-topic:
https://impacts.to/downloads/lowres/impacts.pdf
https://impacts.to/downloads/lowres/impacts.pdf
Beautiful!
Big Flash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSSDi22NVFo
As if matter existed and then there was a creation of light at some moment. Red shift is explained by interaction of light with gravitational field - the more distant source of light, the longer it travels under the influence of gravity and the more red it becomes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSSDi22NVFo
As if matter existed and then there was a creation of light at some moment. Red shift is explained by interaction of light with gravitational field - the more distant source of light, the longer it travels under the influence of gravity and the more red it becomes.
[deleted]
@dang the article does not seem to imply that molecular oxygen was found. maybe retitle to "Oxygen element" or "Atomic oxygen"?
How can they possibly be sure that it is oxygen doing that?
It is mind bending, but well understood (just not by me): we measure oxygen in distant galaxies using spectroscopy to identify specific emission lines in the galaxy's light, especially in the infrared spectrum.
they are witches and read it in the tea leaves, i guess. i didn't read the article
[deleted]
antonkar(2)
A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away…
This is interesting but at same time oxygen is the third most abundant element so it’s not surprising to find it, I suppose. Neat anyway.
This is interesting but at same time oxygen is the third most abundant element so it’s not surprising to find it, I suppose. Neat anyway.
I’m always a bit skeptical about these sorts of things. Perhaps I’m just ignorant about the methods used.. but the amount of data we can get from the most distant known galaxy can’t be very much. How confident can we be that the shift in observed light or whatever is actually from the presence of Oxygen and not one of probably countless other causes, both known and unknown.
Pretty confident. Emission spectra are very specific. The relationship between specific emission lines are invariant to changes in wavelength (redshift/blueshift), and they're complicated enough that it's not too big a deal to weed out false positives.
Here's a textbook example:
https://images.nagwa.com/figures/explainers/469167813067/17....
Here's a textbook example:
https://images.nagwa.com/figures/explainers/469167813067/17....
Skepticism is fair, but the confidence comes from how well we understand atomic spectra
Is that about as well as we understand the formation of the universe? /s
a lot better...we can excite these atoms in a lab and simply measure what comes out. often times don't even need a model because spectroscopy can be fully empirical for many transitions
Spectroscopy is a very straight-forward and mature technique. Saying that “we see these spectral lines in this picture so there must be oxygen” is not considered any more controversial than “we see a bright dot in this picture so there must be a star”.
There are a lot of very smart people working in astronomy, they review each other’s work, and they compete for jobs and funding. Does it really seem likely that none of them have thought to validate basic assumptions?
Having family members who do that for a living, I can tell you that’s a huge chunk of the job. Astronomers all know that they have significant limitations in the data that they can collect and spend a lot of time thinking about ways they can test different theories. It would be a career-making move if some grad student could come up with a new explanation which changes the previous understanding and given the ratio of degrees granted to jobs the incentives really wouldn’t favor covering anything up.
Having family members who do that for a living, I can tell you that’s a huge chunk of the job. Astronomers all know that they have significant limitations in the data that they can collect and spend a lot of time thinking about ways they can test different theories. It would be a career-making move if some grad student could come up with a new explanation which changes the previous understanding and given the ratio of degrees granted to jobs the incentives really wouldn’t favor covering anything up.
From [1] and [2] we read that the CMB was created around 380 million years after the Big Bang, and that hydrogen atoms were created at the same time. The original article above [3] says that this galaxy was created when the universe was about 300 million years old. These seem to be in conflict; am I misunderstanding something, or is there really a conflict there?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Pr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline
[3] https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2507/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Pr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline
[3] https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2507/
The CMB was created 380,000 years after the Big Bang. I think you misread [1] and [2].
Ahh, ok. Got it. Of course.
Anyone else think this is a huge non-story? Like, of course there's going to be oxygen in distant galaxies. Why wouldn't there be? It would be far more interesting if there wasn't oxygen in distant galaxies.
From the article:
>Galaxies usually start their lives full of young stars, which are made mostly of light elements like hydrogen and helium. As stars evolve, they create heavier elements like oxygen, which get dispersed through their host galaxy after they die. Researchers had thought that, at 300 million years old, the Universe was still too young to have galaxies ripe with heavy elements. However, the two ALMA studies indicate JADES-GS-z14-0 has about 10 times more heavy elements than expected.
I didn't know this so I also wasn't surprised by the headline. Although it seems from this quote that they also did expect oxygen to be there, just not as much as they determined to be there. Although I have almost zero interest in space so perhaps this is bigger than I understand. I only clicked on the article because oxygen seems like a pretty simple compound to me and was surprised by the headline. I also think the headline is somewhat misleading due to the point above and how distant the galaxy is isn't the actual the newsworthy point as you say. It is only relevant to the extent that light from distant galaxies reaches earth slower.
The real headline should be something like "more oxygen than expected is created in young galaxies" which is indeed one of those space articles I would never click on.
>Galaxies usually start their lives full of young stars, which are made mostly of light elements like hydrogen and helium. As stars evolve, they create heavier elements like oxygen, which get dispersed through their host galaxy after they die. Researchers had thought that, at 300 million years old, the Universe was still too young to have galaxies ripe with heavy elements. However, the two ALMA studies indicate JADES-GS-z14-0 has about 10 times more heavy elements than expected.
I didn't know this so I also wasn't surprised by the headline. Although it seems from this quote that they also did expect oxygen to be there, just not as much as they determined to be there. Although I have almost zero interest in space so perhaps this is bigger than I understand. I only clicked on the article because oxygen seems like a pretty simple compound to me and was surprised by the headline. I also think the headline is somewhat misleading due to the point above and how distant the galaxy is isn't the actual the newsworthy point as you say. It is only relevant to the extent that light from distant galaxies reaches earth slower.
The real headline should be something like "more oxygen than expected is created in young galaxies" which is indeed one of those space articles I would never click on.
> more oxygen than expected is created in young galaxies
Or we have fundamental errors in measuring distances and ages of things which is leading to these unexpected observations.
Or we have fundamental errors in measuring distances and ages of things which is leading to these unexpected observations.
Which would actually be a bigger deal than a bit of unexpected oxygen, I think; at that point you’re probably kicking the sides of general relativity.
I'm no astronomer but I believe that the first stars tended to be huge and short-lived. Is it surprising that there would have been supernova and heavy elements ejected from them that early?
We expected heavy elements from supernova. It’s surprising that there is 10x more heavy elements than expected. Were there more supernova? Bigger ones? Are we missing other pieces of the picture?
Is a single order of magnitude within a reasonable range of error for the calculation? Some cases that is a massive miss, but other cases that might be within the expected statistical range. In the former cases it implies something entirely missing, while the latter cases are more likely to be known uncertainties which can now be better refined.
An order of magnitude is nothing if you know anything about how astronomers do their calculations xD
Surprising in the sense that they have models and predictions putting out some number and this new measurement showed that they're not exactly correct. Could almost say business as usual when it comes to science like this.
* element
Based on our current models, it takes a long amount of time for elements as heavy as oxygen to be formed, especially in large enough quantities that it can be detected. And when looking at a very distant galaxy, what we're seeing is an image of how it looked like very early in its lifetime. So, the expectation based on certain models was that oxygen would not have yet formed at the time in the history of the universe when this image left towards us.
The expectation is indeed that all galaxies will have more or less the exact same elements that we have at ~13 billion years of age. But the image here is from a galaxy that was, at the time the image was emitted towards us, much younger than that.
The expectation is indeed that all galaxies will have more or less the exact same elements that we have at ~13 billion years of age. But the image here is from a galaxy that was, at the time the image was emitted towards us, much younger than that.
No, it's a big deal. The oxygen existed ~300 million years after the Big Bang. So what has to happen is hydrogen and helium have to coalesce into galaxy and into nebulae, some event probably has to trigger star formation and the stars created have to be really large.
To put this in persepctive, our Sun, which is larger than the median star, produces no oxygen and is ~4.5 billion years old.
Larger stars are theorized to undergo the so-called CNO cycle [1]. To get to this process after "only" 300 million years means the star or stars are truly massive.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle
To put this in persepctive, our Sun, which is larger than the median star, produces no oxygen and is ~4.5 billion years old.
Larger stars are theorized to undergo the so-called CNO cycle [1]. To get to this process after "only" 300 million years means the star or stars are truly massive.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle
Along with the first stars being massive the JWST is showing giant quasars with mostly gas around them which may not quite confirm direct collapse black holes, but it is pointing in that direction very strongly.
> Why wouldn't there be?
Because the light we're seeing from this galaxy is from only 300 million years after the big bang. Elements like oxygen primarily form in supernovae, and the abundance of oxygen and other heavy elements in this extremely young galaxy is ten times higher than expected.
Because the light we're seeing from this galaxy is from only 300 million years after the big bang. Elements like oxygen primarily form in supernovae, and the abundance of oxygen and other heavy elements in this extremely young galaxy is ten times higher than expected.
It seems like you could apply similar thinking to aliens, but if we actually got proof of aliens it'd still be a big deal, right?
There is no way we are alone in this universe, what would really be a big deal though is if there are somehow able to traverse light years to reach us.
Spooky.
The headline is a non-story. Us being wrong about how we thought galaxies form is, in fact, an interesting story. From the article:
"The results show the galaxy has formed very rapidly and is also maturing rapidly, adding to a growing body of evidence that the formation of galaxies happens much faster than was expected."
"The results show the galaxy has formed very rapidly and is also maturing rapidly, adding to a growing body of evidence that the formation of galaxies happens much faster than was expected."
An earlier story posted here, discussed the presence of water around a most distant supernova remnant. The gas surrounding the star had been fused by the shockwave into an expanding sphere of nearly uniform oxygen which then combined with the remaining hydrogen to produce an enormous volume of damp air.
Just a few molecules per cubic meter or less. Estimated at ten trillion times the entire volume of water on earth. Seemed like a lot at the time.
So that was early oxygen. But atypical.
Just a few molecules per cubic meter or less. Estimated at ten trillion times the entire volume of water on earth. Seemed like a lot at the time.
So that was early oxygen. But atypical.
We can reframe the story as: oldest galaxy currently found is much more evolved than expected. We expected something more primitive.
It's not just about finding oxygen... it's about finding it this early in the universe's history
It tells us that our cosmological models are wrong, which in turn tells us that we don’t understand fundamental physics principles models are built on, and this is a big deal.
I'd say the same thing for biological life, but it'll still be newsworthy when we discover it the first time.
In my eyes even finding life is semi a non-story. Or like obviously there's going to be life even intelligent life since it spawned here. Any idea that we're unique is silly we're just emergent phenomena of initial conditions.
Honestly, yes, but only very briefly, as "most distant known galaxy" should show as a very odd beast indeed with the signatures for the lightest elements only, but what is hanging is that there may be even heavier elements, as the search was to detect just oxygen, confirming that, but discussing nothing else.
Everything is a non-story once it comes out.
Even the obvious things have to be proven or we would never really know.
Even the obvious things have to be proven or we would never really know.
Those of us who read the article think otherwise.
A lot of modern science is just fishing for funding to keep running a big machine at something then having the ordained priests interpret the output
Instead of inventing something interesting like "we're able to scan the elemental composition of every galaxy within a radius within seconds" i.e. solve the problem rather than create useless papers and PR.
Instead of inventing something interesting like "we're able to scan the elemental composition of every galaxy within a radius within seconds" i.e. solve the problem rather than create useless papers and PR.
Scientists have to publish a lot of papers (even useless ones) because that is how we have decided to rate them, for better or worse.
And yes, they all mostly need to fish for funding to keep their not-so-well paid jobs going.
They are hardly "ordained priests" though. I think you are trying to insult them, but not really sure what you even mean. They are pretty much by definition highly intelligent people who could earn a lot more by working for FAANG or hedge funds, but prefer to take lower paid work on the off chance they get to discover something interesting about the universe we live in. So not much like priests then.
And yes, they all mostly need to fish for funding to keep their not-so-well paid jobs going.
They are hardly "ordained priests" though. I think you are trying to insult them, but not really sure what you even mean. They are pretty much by definition highly intelligent people who could earn a lot more by working for FAANG or hedge funds, but prefer to take lower paid work on the off chance they get to discover something interesting about the universe we live in. So not much like priests then.
> They are pretty much by definition highly intelligent people who could earn a lot more by working for FAANG or hedge funds
Having interviewed many failed priests of higher education, this is not true. It might have been true 50 years ago, but if you are smart and intelligent you typically do not spend 5-7 of the most productive years of your life getting a PhD.
>but prefer to take lower paid work on the off chance they get to discover something interesting about the universe we live in. So not much like priests then.
This is exactly what priests do for religion right? Academics are ordained priests educated in the Seminary of Higher Education. You need to be granted a Doctor of Philosophy in order to join the Church of Higher Education, and then maybe a few decades of cloistered contemplation and publishing of prayers to the funding agencies will let you do something useful.
Having interviewed many failed priests of higher education, this is not true. It might have been true 50 years ago, but if you are smart and intelligent you typically do not spend 5-7 of the most productive years of your life getting a PhD.
>but prefer to take lower paid work on the off chance they get to discover something interesting about the universe we live in. So not much like priests then.
This is exactly what priests do for religion right? Academics are ordained priests educated in the Seminary of Higher Education. You need to be granted a Doctor of Philosophy in order to join the Church of Higher Education, and then maybe a few decades of cloistered contemplation and publishing of prayers to the funding agencies will let you do something useful.
Everyone I've met with a PhD was intelligent. Maybe not genius, but yeah, pretty damn intelligent.
If you want to spend your life in the pursuit of knowledge rather than mere money or status, it's kind of a prerequisite to demonstrate you can perform original research.
I honestly don't get the analogy with priests. They still seem utterly different to me.
If you want to spend your life in the pursuit of knowledge rather than mere money or status, it's kind of a prerequisite to demonstrate you can perform original research.
I honestly don't get the analogy with priests. They still seem utterly different to me.
Organized religion ordains priests to read the sacred texts (papers, theses, books) and then anoints them to be the only ones allowed to do ministry and theology. Then they fight among themselves to be allowed to get resources and rise up the ranks of the church.
The analog is with forcing promising researchers to go through 5-10 years of thankless "training" to be granted a doctorate, so that they can be taken "seriously" by granting institutions, and have them fight among themselves so they can get resources and rise up the ranks of academia.
It's the same institutional structure, not anything to do with the content, and this is by design since academia and the Church were one and the same centuries ago!
Of course the idea that you don't need institutional approval to do something is alien to someone steeped in this worldview, but this is the news site for YC, most famous for telling people no, in fact you don't have to waste a decade working before doing something interesting.
The analog is with forcing promising researchers to go through 5-10 years of thankless "training" to be granted a doctorate, so that they can be taken "seriously" by granting institutions, and have them fight among themselves so they can get resources and rise up the ranks of academia.
It's the same institutional structure, not anything to do with the content, and this is by design since academia and the Church were one and the same centuries ago!
Of course the idea that you don't need institutional approval to do something is alien to someone steeped in this worldview, but this is the news site for YC, most famous for telling people no, in fact you don't have to waste a decade working before doing something interesting.
Hmmm. You are describing pretty much any human organisation where people have to compete for limited resources.
I disagree strongly with describing learning what we currently know (or think we know) as reading sacred texts and being annointed as the only ones allowed to perform scientific research.
Scientific texts are very much not sacred. Yes, there are orthodoxies which most people believe, and if you are going to go against them, you better have damn good evidence. But you absolutely can challenge them, which is how science progresses and is the key difference between religion and science.
Since I just had a paper published in a computer science academic journal last year, (and I'm very much not an academic), I also challenge the idea that only people within the "priesthood" are allowed to practice the discipline. Obviously this will be rarer than people whose day job is doing this, but there is no license to practice science required from an anointed priesthood.
So forgive me if I really push back on that analogy, as it obscures the absolutely critical differences between them.
I disagree strongly with describing learning what we currently know (or think we know) as reading sacred texts and being annointed as the only ones allowed to perform scientific research.
Scientific texts are very much not sacred. Yes, there are orthodoxies which most people believe, and if you are going to go against them, you better have damn good evidence. But you absolutely can challenge them, which is how science progresses and is the key difference between religion and science.
Since I just had a paper published in a computer science academic journal last year, (and I'm very much not an academic), I also challenge the idea that only people within the "priesthood" are allowed to practice the discipline. Obviously this will be rarer than people whose day job is doing this, but there is no license to practice science required from an anointed priesthood.
So forgive me if I really push back on that analogy, as it obscures the absolutely critical differences between them.
Spend your prime making ads more effective instead.
Just as useless except you make 10x more and can spend your spare time doing everything a grad student can, so what's the problem?
cozyman(1)
The problem with building the factory for the Model T of galaxy scanners is the limited customer audience.
So? The whole point of academia is that they aren't bound by customers. Except that's been subverted by having to kowtow to funding agencies and universities most concerned with accruing and distributing money. Defeating the whole point of having them in the first place! Free and open markets are far more efficient at distributing and allocating capital.
You are confusing academia with science. A lot of science is done in academia, but a lot is also done in the commercial sector.
Obviously the commercial sector won't typically fund things unless there is some probable payback, so they are not so good at doing fundamental research.
You need both to get the best returns.
Obviously the commercial sector won't typically fund things unless there is some probable payback, so they are not so good at doing fundamental research.
You need both to get the best returns.
I'm explicitly not. And you have no idea how much fundamental research happens in the commercial sector because there's no incentive to publish it -- why would I publish the trade secrets for you to exploit? For the record, work I've done under NDA would easily disprove a number of academic theories right now but there's no way I could get the companies to allow me to publish it (nor would I want to tank their stock).
Furthermore, academia doesn't do research unless there's a payback either in papers or prestige. What academia are you thinking of that allows for the pure pursuit of whatever's interesting?
Furthermore, academia doesn't do research unless there's a payback either in papers or prestige. What academia are you thinking of that allows for the pure pursuit of whatever's interesting?
I did say a lot of research is done commercially.
Academia will do non commercial research though, because they are motivated by prestige, not money.
I think we are violently agreeing!
Academia will do non commercial research though, because they are motivated by prestige, not money.
I think we are violently agreeing!