New images from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) reveal for the first time galaxies with stellar bars — elongated features of stars stretching from the centers of galaxies into their outer disks — at a time when the universe was a mere 25% of its present age. The finding of so-called barred galaxies, similar to our Milky Way, this early in the universe will require astrophysicists to refine their theories of galaxy evolution.
Prior to JWST, images from the Hubble Space Telescope had never detected bars at such young epochs. In a Hubble image, one galaxy, EGS-23205, is little more than a disk-shaped smudge, but in the corresponding JWST image taken this past summer, it’s a beautiful spiral galaxy with a clear stellar bar.
“I took one look at these data, and I said, ‘We are dropping everything else!’” said Shardha Jogee, professor of astronomy at The University of Texas at Austin. “The bars hardly visible in Hubble data just popped out in the JWST image, showing the tremendous power of JWST to see the underlying structure in galaxies,” she said, describing data from the Cosmic Evolution Early Release Science Survey (CEERS), led by UT Austin professor, Steven Finkelstein.
The team identified another barred galaxy, EGS-24268, also from about 11 billion years ago, which makes two barred galaxies existing farther back in time than any previously discovered.
In an article accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, they highlight these two galaxies and show examples of four other barred galaxies from more than 8 billion years ago.
“For this study, we are looking at a new regime where no one had used this kind of data or done this kind of quantitative analysis before,” said Yuchen “Kay” Guo, a graduate student who led the analysis, “so everything is new. It’s like going into a forest that nobody has ever gone into.”
Bars play an important role in galaxy evolution by funneling gas into the central regions, boosting star formation.
“Bars solve the supply chain problem in galaxies,” Jogee said. “Just like we need to bring raw material from the harbor to inland factories that make new products, a bar powerfully transports gas into the central region where the gas is rapidly converted into new stars at a rate typically 10 to 100 times faster than in the rest of the galaxy.”
Bars also help to grow supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies by channeling the gas part of the way.
This simulation shows both how stellar bars form (left) and the bar-driven gas inflows (right). Stellar bars play an important role in galaxy evolution by funneling gas into the central regions of a galaxy, where it is rapidly converted into new stars, at a rate typically 10 to 100 times as fast as the rate in the rest of the galaxy. Bars also indirectly help to grow supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies by channeling the gas part of the way. Credit: Francoise Combes, Paris Observatory
The discovery of bars during such early epochs shakes up galaxy evolution scenarios in several ways.
“This discovery of early bars means galaxy evolution models now have a new pathway via bars to accelerate the production of new stars at early epochs,” Jogee said.
And the very existence of these early bars challenges theoretical models as they need to get the galaxy physics right in order to predict the correct abundance of bars. The team will be testing different models in their next papers.
JWST can unveil structures in distant galaxies better than Hubble for two reasons: First, its larger mirror gives it more light-gathering ability, allowing it to see farther and with higher resolution. Second, it can see through dust better as it observes at longer infrared wavelengths than Hubble.
Undergraduate students Eden Wise and Zilei Chen played a key role in the research by visually reviewing hundreds of galaxies, searching for those that appeared to have bars, which helped narrow the list to a few dozen for the other researchers to analyze with a more intensive mathematical approach.
Reference: “First Look at z > 1 Bars in the Rest-Frame Near-Infrared with JWST Early CEERS Imaging” by Yuchen Guo, Shardha Jogee, Steven L. Finkelstein, Zilei Chen, Eden Wise, Micaela B. Bagley, Guillermo Barro, Stijn Wuyts, Dale D. Kocevski, Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe, Elizabeth J. McGrath, Henry C. Ferguson, Bahram Mobasher, Mauro Giavalisco, Ray A. Lucas, Jorge A. Zavala, Jennifer M. Lotz, Norman A. Grogin, Marc Huertas-Company, Jesús Vega-Ferrero, Nimish P. Hathi, Pablo Arrabal Haro, Mark Dickinson, Anton M. Koekemoer, Casey Papovich, Nor Pirzkal, L. Y. Aaron Yung, Bren E. Backhaus, Eric F. Bell, Antonello Calabrò, Nikko J. Cleri, Rosemary T. Coogan, M. C. Cooper, Luca Costantin, Darren Croton, Kelcey Davis, Alexander de la Vega, Avishai Dekel, Maximilien Franco, Jonathan P. Gardner, Benne W. Holwerda, Taylor A. Hutchison, Viraj Pandya, Pablo G. Pérez-González, Swara Ravindranath, Caitlin Rose, Jonathan R. Trump and Weichen Wang, Accepted, The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Other co-authors from UT Austin are Steven Finkelstein, Micaela Bagley and Maximilien Franco. Dozens of co-authors from other institutions hail from the U.S., the U.K., Japan, Spain, France, Italy, Australia and Israel.
Funding for this research was provided in part by the Roland K. Blumberg Endowment in Astronomy, the Heising-Simons Foundation, and NASA. This work relied on resources at the Texas Advanced Computing Center, including Frontera, the most powerful supercomputer at a U.S. university.
Very interesting artice, thank you.
How much more evidence do “Scientists” (who aren’t supposed to get emotional over data that contradicts their previous theories) before they accept The Big Bang DIDN’T HAPPEN? The more time we waste playing denial games, the more time is wasted that much further on a terrible theory that is based on the notion of something that makes zero sense and for which we have zero evidence (the singularity). Why would it exist, where did it come from and why would it suddenly explode? In truth, it’s not based on anything so logical to think about, but rather purely on RED SHIFT.
Our entire theory of Life, the Universe and Everything is based on RED SHIFT. But what if Red Shift varies not just by distance (doppler shift), but because it actually gets dimmer over such vast distances (space isn’t empty as we once supposed)? Suddenly, The Big Bang Theory falls apart because all our assumptions of DISTANCE are based purely on RED SHIFT and NOTHING ELSE. The very notion that we’re expanding at all is based on such observations. Imagine how many theories tied to the Big Bang will fall apart when we realize we got Red Shift WRONG. Better that, though than than continuing down the same road of NONSENSE (Dark Matter and Dark Energy) to explain why our basic math models don’t work when it’s based on a fundamental FLAW.
If the red shift is due to absorption (as I inferred from your “space isn’t empty as we once supposed”), why don’t we see those specific absorption lines in the spectra? Or do you propose some mysterious ether that absorbs all wavelengths equally?
The big bang hypothesis is not based on just red shift. Red shift is not a measure of distance, but a measure of acceleration. We measure distances to stars and galaxies using two types of “standard candles” (one of which might not be as reliable as previously thought). From those we get the distance. Then we measure the red shift, which shows us the acceleration. Guess what? All the distant galaxies are accelerating away from our point of reference. What’s your hypothesis to explain that?
You’re like an authoritative free Einsteinian creation science book on the internet. You must come from a house full of super smart people.
So lucky to have you here! Please now tell everyone here, using your obviously incredible math/language knowledge expertise, all about time bending with wormholes and bridges!
Guess what, oh grand design genius, redshift supposedly measures velocity directly, not acceleration as you suggest. Furthermore, Hubble’s constant supposedly equates redshift to distance, so you’re wrong again to quibble over that too. Please factor that in and carry on, soldier.
Some want to treat Lorentz redshift (effect based on velocity differences) as a variation on the theme of gravitational redshift (effect based on gravity differences) even though there is no Lorentz blueshift to match up with gravitational blueshift, and of course velocity has to be mathematically differentiated to produce a gravity measure such as acceleration.
It’s no surprise a general relativity fan would conflate velocity-based and acceleration-based frequency shifts. There’s apparently a strong desire to make GR appear to be logical and coherent when it’s neither.
Now this is a true word salad. Obviously you don’t have a basic knowledge of physics and just stringing together big words to make yourself sound important.
What you describe as “some want to do…” has no bearing on what we were discussing, which was your assertion that red shift is due to light getting dimmer due to distance and not due to acceleration.
Not sure what you mean by “Lorentz redshift” because no such thing exists. You probably got this from some Youtube gook who confused Lorentz symmetry in special relativity with something else.
TheHeck, what is too much for you to follow is that motion-based redshift is a determined by *velocity* not *acceleration* as you claimed in your fraudulent complaint about another poster.
Hubble’s constant relates velocity (and distance) with redshift.
Nothing about acceleration is demanded there.
Redshift of light increases practically linearly with velocity until relativistic speeds are relevant. You may in your political delirium want everyone to think all speeds are relativistic if you have a problem with that. Anyway your cosmological redshift is definitely not relativistic nonlinear except on a log plot with two phases, separated by something like the 10% lightspeed guideline which means what in distance? It means to me the universe doesn’t seem big enough to go visibly Hubble nonlinear in a Lorentz tail fashion, it’s pretty much acting Dopplerian and do so based on a lightspeed we all can imagine is constant as long as there is not a lot of light-bending. Minor point for a carefree jovial BB political gamesman like you, TheHeck, I know.
What if light bends in a vacuum due to gravity without space bending along to assist it? A brave new imperial MIC uniparty optical metrology disaster?
“TheHeck, what is too much for you to follow is that motion-based redshift is a determined by *velocity* not *acceleration* as you claimed in your fraudulent complaint about another poster.”
Let me explain this in simpler terms. Redshift of distant galaxies gives us their velocity (not distance). We measure the distance to these galaxies using standard candles. Then we compare the closer galaxies with ones that are further away. That shows that the further galaxies have a higher velocity away from us than the closer ones (Hubble constant x delta distance). Thus, we measure redshift of distant galaxies to measure the acceleration of the expansion of space, not the distance to them, as the OP suggested.
Hope this is simple enough for you.
Your ad hominems suggest you’ve got nothing. No Hubble’s constant does not equate red-shift to distance. In fact, it has nothing to do with red shift at all. Hubble’s constant is 70km/s/Megaparsec. It means, for each megaparsec an object is distant from us, it is speeding away from us at a velocity of 70km/s. Nothing “supposedly” about it, and no red shift. Next!
Blah blah blah. Totally done with your smeary dirty trick low-IQ political physics.
“Not sure what you mean by “Lorentz redshift” because no such thing exists.”
Really? Are you telling me you blew the evidence up or buried it in a rubble hole? I’m addressing you only, not the BB religion or any of its disbelievers. Not sure if Shapiro’s SN Ia standard dilation (plus attenuation) candle studies are totally out of date.
Redshift is proportional to recession velocity according to the Lorentz relation. I’m ignoring proper motions. Before a Lorentz effect is obvious there is Doppler redshift, despite lightspeed being effectively treated as a constant, the rate of light information flow from a slowly moving source is Doppler redshifted but at a much different rate than sound because sound moves much slower than light. This of course makes no sense to a relativity fan.
“Your ad hominems”
Your advanced complex sleuthing has me confused with you.
foo, just foo and slime, maybe with some fud.
You heard it here first, velocity-based redshift has a low energy Doppler-like phase and a phase where Lorentz relation starts to make a real difference. It’s clearest on a log plot (oops, I said plot!), I think. This is all very ancient to my less-ancient studies. Another pre-eminent DM popularizer aside from you who always “starts with a bang” (more rude or dismissive politics, in other words) apparently likes to conflate these two phases, as far as I can tell.
“your assertion that red shift is due to light getting dimmer due to distance and not due to acceleration”
You political types always operate with nasty sloppy smears and short attention spans. I said Hubble’s constant relates velocity to distance (velocity/distance), like with units in km/s/Megaparsec.
“It means, for each megaparsec an object is distant from us, it is speeding away from us at a velocity of 70km/s.”
TheHeck, you short attention span child-artist pant-smear circles around to complete the loopy pile of Einsteinian authority you’ve dumped. You were supposed to be complaining about mentioning velocity, but now it’s time for you to shape-shift and have it both ways because you can hide behind constant change in velocity with distance being equal to constant acceleration independent of distance without exposing your low-watt propaganda game.
TheHeck it’s not a quibble constant where acceleration over distance ever fits better than velocity over distance.
Velocity is supposed proportional to distance because redshift is proportional to distance and redshift is proportional to velocity, because cosmological red-shift is presumed to be velocity based. Hubble’s constant is not acceleration over distance, it’s a velocity-based measure over distance and redshift is proportional to velocity by the Doppler (nonrelativistic) nature of frequency shifts not affected by gravity change. Do you like burning man or multiverse more?
Another bout of verbal diarrhea from our Dunning-Kruger poster boy. None of what you are blabbing about makes any sense. This is why scientists laugh at you.
Someday, Hollywood wormhole pilots will admit with an older and wiser Einstein that his revolutionary spacetime continuum had all the weight of a viscous political religious joke, then all the hints of extra-dimensional spacetime buffoonery will spontaneously collapse visibly into 3D.
“Red shift is … a measure of acceleration.”
But we aren’t supposed to be talking about dementia, we should be talking about special relativity here, so a *changing* red shift is a measure of acceleration… unless you want to flip arbitrarily to general relativity that equates gravity to acceleration and absent-mindedly start blaming cosmological recession entirely on gravity. Or else it’s a demented plot to make SR and GR appear to be a single coherent theory.
“Red shift is … a measure of acceleration.”
“… measure the red shift, which shows us the acceleration.”
There is a multiverse version of this where you actually measure multiple red shifts to get multiple velocities which are them combined to derive a measure of acceleration that may vary over time if the measurements say so. That’s not the universe you live in, is it?
I’m sure we are all looking forward to your paper supporting your arguments as detailed here.
I am sure he will tell you that there is a massive global conspiracy among scientists to stifle him, because they are being paid by the “Big Big Bang”, Big Relativity, and/or Hugo Chavez. That’s gotta be the reason why they laugh hysterically at the nonsense word salads that he “publishes” on comment threads, not because he is a total and complete ignorasmus.
This is what happens when you pay people to sit on their collective asses and think about math. They even try to create hysteria to get more grants to continue their existence as ticks on the back side of science.
Says the idiot who is sitting on his ass posting inane, ignorant comments of subjects he doesn’t understand, using technology built by those who do.
He’s right though, and you are not, and you know it.
Oh, and look – here’s another one!
Such continuing excellent vacuum-motivated political content from you on this page, buddy!
Time dilation is a shift in light frequency, nobody likes to call the effect of red-shifted or blue-shifted light from a moving object “time dilation” except general relativity fans. Reason seems to be there is no Lorentz length expansion or time contraction in special relativity as taught in the 70’s – 80’s.
Maybe SR has been modernized but basically it starts with a light beam bouncing between two mirrors on a fast ship. Of course, it has relativistic mass that conveniently is operating in a practically gravity-variation-free universe. Good clean humor.
I guess one sometime must subtract a Lorentz (relativistic) redshift from a doppler blueshift. They should mix, but it makes sense to divide speeds into relativistic speeds and non-relativistic speeds if only so it’s understood how relativistic red shifts and non-relativistic blue shifts can combine. For observing a moving satellite there is cancellation between an always red-shifting satellite velocity effect regardless of direction in orbit velocity, and an always blue-shifting gravity difference effect. If the red shift was greatly different from Dopplerian necessarily due to near light-like satellite speeds I’d say so, but they aren’t moving very fast compared to light, much less than 10% lightspeed (handy benchmark alert), but by just saying it’s a time dilation effect seems to indulge an anti-Dopplerian kink, in my tiny little opinion.
“For observing a moving satellite there is cancellation between an always red-shifting satellite velocity effect ”
I am confining this to a satellite substantially overhead, not near the horizon. A Doppler-like velocity blue-shift is available for constant radius satellites approaching from the horizon.
“It’s no surprise a general relativity fan would conflate velocity-based and acceleration-based frequency shifts”
This is the part someone wanted to ignore in favor of going after “Lorentz” because they want everyone to think they’re a google bot with a tiny cache.
Redshift in SR is velocity-based, and SR uses Lorentz rules.
Redshift in GR is gravity effect (acceleration) difference based.
Solution: conflate velocity with acceleration using constant acceleration derived from multiple different non-relativistic red-shifting velocities.
Go ahead, keep proving my point LOL.
You’re a man-child aiming to make big impressions. You claim to know when scientists are laughing. So idiotic, since they’re in your head they’re only laughing at you. Blaming the laughter in your head on me is pure stupid.
“Go ahead, keep proving my point LOL.”
Your nastiness theory needs a massive well-funded social support laugh-track network, and it all fits conveniently in your head. That’s the gist of my point.
A lot of non-simulated barred spirals practically resemble a figure “8” where the arms could conceivably have occupied a single peripheral ring, which implies to me that gravity sourced from close to the center of such a galaxy, and other barred spirals, is many times more dominant than in any of the simulations here.
What can keep the arms from collapsing inward too quickly and completely leaving the original supposed ring region despite that dominant center, and what can keep the bar very tight and often very straight overall, with a significant, often opalescent and lens-like phase-change in background luminance occurring with distance from the center, would be the existence of a single 360 roll in the effect of gravity propagating between central matter and any matter at the ring radius. A bottleneck effect on matter pulled to the center region from the ring region would be a consequence of the roll effects from matter of both regions generating significant mutual gravity phase interference, weakening their interactions on the bar compared to the bar’s own self-gravity.
You used a lot of words to convey absolutely nothing. Congrats, you are fully qualified to be the next speaker of the congress, when McCarthy gets booted by the radicals.
Thanks for letting me know what a loser thinks.
“You used a lot of words to convey absolutely nothing.”
I get that that sort of massively fatuous comment all the time from political spooks when questioning the ultimate utility of Einstein’s continuum and his gravity, so I have to conclude you have taken it almost verbatim from some Einsteinian political spook handbook. Sincere thanks for gifting us with the free Big Bang lesson though.
You’re so politically smart and involved, I’m guessing you know that the inverse square rule used by Newton can be explained using a 3D surface integral taken over a vector field.
I wish you could explain in your own language expert words how the inverse square law falls out of Einstein’s gravity.
After that maybe you can give everyone a heads up on your no-doubt highly educated political reasons for knowing how gravitational spin induction works best in a religious continuum.
Hopefully you can do that before the third time we see another asteroid that looks more like a rough octahedron than it does a rough irregular shape or a rough sphere.
You are so triggered by your own Dunning-Kruger’s that it’s hilarious to watch you melt down. Spin induction in a religious continuum indeed.
“You are so triggered by your own Dunning-Kruger’s”
Geeze. Stop using a mirror to generate turbo content. The Kohberger effect was practically patented by the English over a century ago
Einstein sincerely doubted his own continuum, but it remains practically a religion unconsciously used by all of his non-quantizable gravity buddies who imagine anything else is gravity trivia. …. Of course, you have no idea how to pull an inverse square Newtonian gravity flux-characteristic relation out of Einstein’s field equation and you have no idea how flux-less kinetic gravitational spin induction could work, because it won’t work without time-stretching mental gyrations.
You show all signs of being stuck with all the charming old Einstein continuum cheerleaders in popular opinion land on good old “Mt. Stupid.”
Sounds like you got bullied a lot by the scientists of the facility where you work as a janitor.
You have a child’s knack for invention. I was a GS-14 step 10 Electrical Engineering degreed grownup in the executive branch until I retired many years ago. What rainbow bent time wormhole kindergarten did you graduate from?
“Congrats, you are fully qualified to be the next speaker of the congress, when McCarthy gets booted by the radicals.”
Timestamp shows this is the first event of nonscientific politics and personal smearing being injected into this page. Point here is this radical-fighting fictional character is probably part of a large superficial chameleonic political group that will force changes to hamper free speech on this forum, and this is simply the starting salvo.
So, the desire here is strong to show everyone how scientifically demented this guy is. It’s all to preserve free speech others want to squash like a bug.
While the Albus red shift alternative may not be correct, I think you need to be open to the possibility that the Big Bang did not occur and that the universe is not what was theorized almost a century ago. There may be other reasons for the red shift observation which will lead to a new understanding of our universe.
There are interesting hypotheses that look at the big bang hypothesis in the light of a multiverse. If you are a beginner, I would suggest looking up James Beacham’s lecture at the Royal Institution on the mathematical projection of what we might see inside a black hole.
In the multiverse, every “woo” directed to an innocent “beginner” (aren’t we all beginners, buddy?) can be spelled as “Woooooooooooooohhhh!”
If you can’t understand the concept of a multiverse, at least try to educate yourself on it. The math supports it, but it doesn’t mean it’s reality – it means, a multiverse is theoretically possible.
Woooooooooooohhh!!!!! What are your multiverse pronouns?
“… a single 360 roll in the effect of gravity propagating between central matter and any matter at the ring radius.”
I’ve slightly understated the issue I’m trying to highlight here. Essentially, I want to suggest this 360-degree roll in the gravity effect from the center mass, occurring as gravity is passing unhindered toward a distance demarked by the ring part of the galaxy, would occur even if there was no matter at the ring portion. The visible matter in real barred galaxies is often much tighter and readily confines itself to geometrically simple extended forms compared to the usual simulation with DM because the GR gravity well for a point mass is monotonic and lacks concentric damped static wave ripples embedded within it.
I was quoting myself there, not the topic article, but the website decided to make my original comment a separate string.
The quantum wave’s roll (pitch) effect would presumably have no preferred pitch horizon except where center mass rotation creates a bias toward a pitch horizon running parallel to the rotation axis.
A simulation with MoND or DM is naturally going to be ragged and noisy compared to multiplying gravity’s point-source inverse square spreading flux intensity by a single-wavelength complex sinusoid, by my estimation. The innermost strongest inflection of this roll effect provides an excellent basis for creating ultra-large-radius peripheral lensing paths.
Talking to the voices in your head, especially in a word salad that has no meaning, is not a good sign. Seek professional help. Schizophrenia can be controlled through a medication regime.
Self-correction is obviously an alien concept to you.
He’s all spooky garbage talk aching to go off topic here, Munchausen’s mental incompetence by proxy, and it’s all the time in comments from TheHeck, who has virtually promised to never ever grow up and learn the errors of his ways. Rainbow atomic clock time bending, enabled by Einstein’s extradimensional continuum delirium, was always a WWII British political joke.
People are apparently paid with taxpayer money to keep Einstein’s bent time looking relevant as if they’re contributing to something innocent, but it’s largely tribal nepotism and low-IQ GPS insecurity since gravitational frequency shift only gives information on gravity differences, not on time rate differences. Most GR fans have no idea that gravity shift could expose independence between light-frequency and signal rate in a photon stream as independent variables, correspondingly there is no belief that photons can speed up under increased gravity, only lame excuses for dismissing energy exchange between gravity quanta and light quanta.
Another possible point of confusion involving the gravity field “roll” I’m describing is people might be confused and think of an airplane doing a pitch roll making the plane travel along a looped path. The vector-field “roll” in quantum gravitational information carriers I’m describing does not cause the carriers to depart from their straight radiated paths.
Notice the simulations due not keep track of the rate of time involved. Supposing the MW is 100,000 light years across and noting that a visible galactic edge should be moving at nowhere near lightspeed, it’s hard to imagine the thumbnail fuzzy bar effect shown being formed in anything remotely close to only 2 billion years.
Apparently, the galaxies shown are supposed represent about 10 billion years ago or almost 4 billion years after the supposed BB. I’m guessing the original simulation was supposed to cover close to 13 billion years of evolution.
Little clarification: “galaxies shown are supposed” should be “real galaxies shown are supposed to”
This website is apparently already now letting someone nest a comment under a comment with no reply link in it, and the commenter is using it for mental abuse. That is overpriced overprivileged lazy stupid spook military rainbow bent-time wormhole kiddie fraud subsidy expertise for you.
“Go ahead, keep proving my point LOL.”
your point is you can indent a comment as a reply to my comment with no comment link left to tail. You have the appearance of using insecure special relativity privileges to squash free speech here already, and you use it to lie about people that don’t accept the ridiculous physics money-grab Einstein and his own version of CRT set in motion. So, you’ll pretend I’m a radical because you’re an insecure social engineering religious spacetime zombie.
The site may now have fixed that indent problem, or else someone else here temporarily drove me to distraction with religious politics, and of course that someone is fronting for Einstein’s young universe creationism and its imaginary mastery over time and the Hollywood money wormhole of cartoon extradimensional continuum trivia. I ridicule them here and they claim widespread laughter results. The humor is good and free. No need to thank me.