15 ms·
Oxygen atoms discovered in most distant known galaxy
- PaulHoule 2y agoIt 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.
- 1970-01-01 2y agoThere 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.
- yoavm 2y agoSorry, but can you elaborate on that? In what sense are you thinking of?
- deadbabe 2y agoIn 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.
- thurn 2y agothis 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"?
- wegfawefgawefg 2y agoofficer she told me she was 4 billion years old
- scryers_bloom 2y agoThis 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?
- hnuser123456 2y agoThere 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.
- hnuser123456 2y agoTo 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."
- AtlasBarfed 2y agoI 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.
- PaulHoule 2y agoThere 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.
- antonkar 2y ago[flagged]
- mandelbrotwurst 2y agoWhat does “direct democratic” mean in this context please?
- Geee 2y agoEach universe has one vote, and they vote on whether to keep the computer running or not. We haven't figured out how to vote yet.
- antonkar 2y agoI answered above)
- aithrowawaycomm 2y agoTech's general atheism has left many tech people with a somewhat compromised ideological immune system: preposterous magical thinking is laundered with sci-fi language and accepted as plausible. (cf. the simulation "hypothesis", Roko's basilisk, paperclip maximizers, etc) Why not stipulate that the Flying Spaghetti Monster oversees the elections like an FEC commissioner? It is equally rational: the only difference is that it doesn't jive with sci-fi aesthetics, just like how Pastafarianism doesn't jive with Catholic aesthetics.
- cropcirclbureau 2y agoNobody dogmatically believes in this. This is not an "ideology", just some people having fun speculating existence. A far cry from religion and conspiracy nuts. Stop being so grumpy!
- uoaei 2y agoPray tell, what do you think of the etymology and construction of the word "ideology"?
- indoordin0saur 2y agoAnyone 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.
- messe 2y ago> 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.
- simiones 2y agoBased 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.
- fngjdflmdflg 2y agoFrom 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.
- ck2 2y agoNote 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-discover-extraterrestrial-oxygen https://news.arizona.edu/news/how-next-gen-telescopes-could-...
- hnuser123456 2y agoOxygen 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.
- fph 2y agoTechnically, all oxygen is from stars. Plants merely recombine chemically already-existing oxygen.
- pixl97 2y agoOxygen 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-space https://now.northropgrumman.com/what-happens-to-oxygen-in-sp...
- jasonlfunk 2y agoI’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.
- floxy 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy#Atoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy#Atoms
- itishappy 2y agoPretty 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.svg https://images.nagwa.com/figures/explainers/469167813067/17....
- interludead 2y agoSkepticism is fair, but the confidence comes from how well we understand atomic spectra
- fasteo 2y agoOff topic: - Is the big bang theory the scientific consensus on the origin and evolution of the universe ? - What are the alternatives ?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- okayishdefaults 2y agoConsider 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.
- elashri 2y agoBig 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.
- pixl97 2y agoAdd 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.
- moomin 2y agoI 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.
- magicmicah85 2y agoA 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.
- shemtay 2y ago@dang the article does not seem to imply that molecular oxygen was found. maybe retitle to "Oxygen element" or "Atomic oxygen"?
- interludead 2y agoFinding oxygen in a galaxy this young is pretty wild
- lab14 2y agoWhy?
- Keyframe 2y agoprobably 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 https://science.nasa.gov/universe/stars/types/#neutron-stars
- interludead 2y agoBecause 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
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- EGreg 2y agoHow can they possibly be sure that it is oxygen doing that?
- vpribish 2y agothey are witches and read it in the tea leaves, i guess. i didn't read the article
- abrookewood 2y agoIt 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.
- gentle 2y agoI'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.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dvt 2y agoI 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.
- acdha 2y agoThere’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.
- umeshunni 2y ago> Skinner-ized What does this mean? A quick Google search didn't help me
- mlekoszek 2y agoArranged 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/addiction-by-design https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691160887/ad...
- m3kw9 2y agoGotta add the time factor. “Billions of years ago”
- setopt 2y agoIsn’t that even more interesting?
- joquarky 2y agoOxygen is everywhere. Hydrogen is everywhere. The possibilities are interesting.
- NotAnOtter 2y agoGiven how simple Water is and how readily available it's components are, it's inevitable there are many planets with vast oceans.
- UI_at_80x24 2y agoAt least 30% of the bodies in _our_ solar system have vast oceans. You are right, it's inevitable.
- alex_young 2y agoWater oceans? It’s far far from 30% isn’t it? Is there an image of a single water ocean not on Earth?
- codedokode 2y agoThere is an ocean somewhere near Jupyter or Saturn.
- ender7 2y agoDue 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")
- UI_at_80x24 2y agoI 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.
- hsnewman 2y agoI would be shocked if it were not found everywhere.
- analog31 2y agoI'd be more worried if there was a whole bunch of carbon dioxide.
- umeshunni 2y agoFunny you say that because this article just came out the other day https://www.sciencealert.com/jwst-detects-carbon-dioxide-outside-solar-system-for-first-time https://www.sciencealert.com/jwst-detects-carbon-dioxide-out...
- slwvx 2y agoFrom [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#Predictions_based_on_the_Big_Bang_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Pr... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline [3] https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2507/ https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2507/
- stripykitteh 2y agoThe CMB was created 380,000 years after the Big Bang. I think you misread [1] and [2].
- slwvx 2y agoAhh, ok. Got it. Of course.
- divbzero 2y agoSo either our understanding of nucleosynthesis is incomplete or the universe is older than we think. Which one is more likely? Are there assumptions or parameters in our model for the age of the universe that could be inaccurate?
- andsoitis 2y agoProbably both.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]