Early galaxies weren't mystifyingly massive after all, James Webb Space Telescope finds

a deep-sky image showing hundreds of distant galaxies
This image shows a small portion of the field observed by NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope’s NIRCam (Near-Infrared Camera) for the Cosmic Evolution Early Release Science (CEERS) survey. It is filled with galaxies. The light from some of them has traveled for over 13 billion years to reach the telescope. (Image credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, Steve Finkelstein (UT Austin))

Black holes may be behind why the newborn universe appeared to possess more huge galaxies than scientists could explain, a new study finds.

Astronomers made this discovery with the help of NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the largest and most powerful off-Earth observatory to date. Launched in December 2021, the $10 billion JWST specializes in detecting infrared light, just like thermal vision goggles. 

Scientists are using JWST to investigate the early cosmos. The universe has expanded greatly since it was born about 13.8 billion years ago in the Big Bang, and that means the light from early galaxies appears reddened by the time it reaches Earth, much as how an ambulance siren sounds lower-pitched to people as the vehicle drives away. JWST is designed to help capture light from the earliest galaxies, much of which has shifted into the infrared range.

When astronomers got their first glimpses of galaxies in the early universe from JWST, they were expecting miniature versions of modern galaxies. Instead, they found that some galaxies had grown very large very quickly. 

Related: James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) — A complete guide

This previous research suggested that something might be wrong with scientists' thinking about what the universe is made of and how it has evolved since the Big Bang, known as the standard model of cosmology. All in all, early galaxies seemed to be larger than what the standard model expected by "roughly a factor of two," study co-author Steve Finkelstein, an astrophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin, told Space.com.

Now, Finkelstein and his colleagues find that some of these early galaxies are actually much less massive than they first appeared. They detailed their findings online Aug. 26 in The Astrophysical Journal.

In the new study, the researchers focused on 261 galaxies from about 700 million to 1.5 billion years after the Big Bang. To estimate the mass of galaxies, scientists typically see how much light a galaxy emits and deduce the number of stars it likely possesses to generate all that light. Previously, when it came to early galaxies, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope "was only to glimpse the hottest, most massive stars," Finkelstein said. "JWST observes redder wavelengths, so is sensitive to lower-mass, cooler stars, and so can more accurately measure the total amount of stars in these galaxies."

The scientists discovered that black holes made nine of these early galaxies appear much brighter — and thus bigger — than they really are. Although black holes get their name from how their gravitational pulls are so powerful that not even light can escape, gas falling into black holes can glow brightly from the friction it experiences as it rushes in at high speeds. This extra light can make it appear that galaxies hold more stars than they actually do.

Once the researchers accounted for these black hole-affected galaxies, the standard model could account for the remaining early galaxies.

"So, the bottom line is, there is no crisis in terms of the standard model of cosmology," Finkelstein said in a press release. "Any time you have a theory that has stood the test of time for so long, you have to have overwhelming evidence to really throw it out. And that's simply not the case."

However, "we are still seeing more galaxies than predicted, although none of them are so massive that they 'break' the universe," study lead author Katherine Chworowsky, a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin, said in the press release.

One possible reason that JWST sees about twice as many massive early galaxies as expected from the standard model is that stars formed more quickly in the early universe than they do today. "Maybe in the early universe, galaxies were better at turning gas into stars," Chworowsky said in the press release.

A star is born when a cloud of gas succumbs to its own gravity and collapses. However, as this gas contracts, it heats up because of friction, generating outward pressure. Nowadays, these opposing forces usually make star formation slow. However, since the early universe was denser than it is today, some research suggests it was hard to expel gas during star formation, letting it happen faster.

Now "we would like to understand why we observe what we observe," Finkelstein said. "One way to do this is to study how these galaxies build up their stellar mass." Such data will come in the next few months, "which we should be able to use to better understand how these massive galaxies formed."

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Charles Q. Choi
Contributing Writer

Charles Q. Choi is a contributing writer for Space.com and Live Science. He covers all things human origins and astronomy as well as physics, animals and general science topics. Charles has a Master of Arts degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Journalism and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of South Florida. Charles has visited every continent on Earth, drinking rancid yak butter tea in Lhasa, snorkeling with sea lions in the Galapagos and even climbing an iceberg in Antarctica. Visit him at http://www.sciwriter.us

  • rod
    'The bottom line is, there is no crisis in terms of the standard model of cosmology.'

    Okay, nothing to see hear folks, cosmology and BBT, all is well. The paper cited shows z=4-8 for galaxies studies. Using cosmology calculators like Ned Wright, z=4, comoving radial distance is some 23.873 Gly

    Using z = 8, comoving radial distance is some 29.823 Gly

    From earth, we cannot see what those galaxies evolved into today or what mass they may or may not have. Small issues like this show up when interpreting observations of redshifts and expanding universe modeling.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    It is no surprise to me that the BBT cosmologists can "explain" practically anything we are currently capable of observing, even if it was not what their model predicted before the observations were made. There are just so many unconstrained assumptions in the model that it is extremely malleable.

    But, it seems that there is still a question about how such large black holes developed so quickly.

    Frankly, if the universe was many hundreds of times more dense with matter back when the light was emitted from which these observations were now made, it would not surprise me if the star formation rate was higher than we see today. And, if central supermassive black holes tend to suppress star formation in their galaxies, then perhaps the galaxies grew quite rapidly until they could produce black holes large enough to suppress growth.

    But, it still bothers me that the assumption seems to be that atoms then are the same size as atoms now, rather than they too got larger as the space around them and inside them became larger. In terms of cross sectional areas for interactions, and thus reaction rates for frictional heating, chemical reactions, etc., that seems like an important assumption when trying to figure out the dynamics of early galaxy formation.
    Reply
  • Torbjorn Larsson
    Possibly other groups can criticize that almost all the "red dot" galaxies are excluded due to problems with estimating their masses. But that just points to how they are likely accretion disk controlled as a recent model explaining early black hole growth with magnetic rigidity allowing for super-Eddington growth rates says .

    The remaining high star rate formation is ironic, since ten years ago models had problems turning the natural rate down to match late universe galaxy counts. But that discrepancy was a factor 10, now it is merely a factor 2 in the other direction.

    Unclear Engineer said:
    It is no surprise to me that the BBT cosmologists can "explain" practically anything we are currently capable of observing, even if it was not what their model predicted before the observations were made. There are just so many unconstrained assumptions in the model that it is extremely malleable.

    But, it seems that there is still a question about how such large black holes developed so quickly.
    It is a fact that the cosmological models are still somewhat malleable, but it is also a fact that the surveys agree on most general parameters. Full star formation models are auxiliary (and complicated) models that only show up in cosmological simulations, not in plain vanilla BBT models of hot big bang universe expansion.

    Here is how an astrophysicist describes it, when writing on the same topic:
    Theoretically, our picture of the Universe isn’t particularly malleable, at least on cosmic scales. We already have a suite of observations that cannot be ignored; everything else that we learn has to be explained within the same context as what we already know.
    https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/jwst-galaxies-didnt-break-cosmology/
    Regarding supermassive black hole early growth (and coincidentally, red dots), a recent first complete model may have explained it in a series of papers (but the first paper suffice here): https://astro.theoj.org/article/94757-forge-d-in-fire-resolving-the-end-of-star-formation-and-structure-of-agn-accretion-disks-from-cosmological-initial-conditions , https://astro.theoj.org/article/93066-forge-d-in-fire-ii-the-formation-of-magnetically-dominated-quasar-accretion-disks-from-cosmological-initial-conditions , https://astro.theoj.org/article/93065-an-analytic-model-for-magnetically-dominated-accretion-disks.

    It has recently become possible to zoom-in from cosmological to sub-pc scales in galaxy simulations to follow accretion onto supermassive black holes (SMBHs). However, at some point the approximations used on ISM scales (e.g. optically-thin cooling and stellar-population-integrated star formation and feedback ) break down. We therefore present the first cosmological radiation-magnetohydrodynamic (RMHD) simulation which self-consistently combines the FIRE physics (relevant on galactic/ISM scales where SF/FB are ensemble-averaged) and STARFORGE physics (relevant on small scales where we track individual (proto)stellar formation and evolution), together with explicit RMHD (including non-ideal MHD and multi-band M1-RHD) which self-consistently treats both optically-thick and thin regimes. This allows us to span scales from ~100 Mpc down to <100 au (~300 Schwarzschild radii) around a SMBH at a time where it accretes as a bright quasar, in a single simulation. We show that accretion rates up to ∼10−100M⊙yr−1 can be sustained into the accretion disk at ≪103Rschw, with gravitational torques between stars and gas dominating on sub-kpc scales until star formation is shut down on sub-pc scales by a combination of optical depth to cooling and strong magnetic fields. There is an intermediate-scale, flux-frozen disk which is gravitoturbulent and stabilized by magnetic pressure sustaining strong turbulence and inflow with persistent spiral modes. In this paper we focus on how gas gets into the small-scale disk, and how star formation is efficiently suppressed.
    Unclear Engineer said:
    But, it still bothers me that the assumption seems to be that atoms then are the same size as atoms now, rather than they too got larger as the space around them and inside them became larger.
    Spectra are the same after accounting for cosmological expansion redshift, so it is the same atom physics.

    Atoms are cohesive systems, also helping by way of molecular forces in building cohesive stars and planets and organisms, so they easily resist the cosmological expansion from general relativity.

    In fact, gravity suffice to resist space expansion up to the scale of our Local Group, which seems to be bound and hence see no space expansion within. The cosmological space expansion in between galaxy clusters is locally very slow at currently a 10^-10 rate in space and time or in other words 1 nanometer per meter and per year.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    Torbjorn, Trying to think about your model and also think "outside your box", the thing that seems inconsistent between the expansion of space and quantum mechanics is how space expansion seems to affect some "waves" but not other "waves" in space. The whole astronomical red shift phenomenon is predicated on the assumption that space expands and electromagnetic waves we call photons expand with it. But, quantum mechanics gives wave properties to everything in their respective "fields". So, my question is really why doesn't everything expand the same way that photons expand?
    Arguing that other things are bound by forces that are stronger than dark energy so that they are "bound" by electromagnetic, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces is the usual "answer". But, that really doesn't address why their fields are not stretched in such a manner that it does not really affect what is being bound. For instance, if space expands by a factor of 2 and a photon's wavelength is thus stretched by a factor of 2 because its field is stretched, why isn't an atom also stretched by a factor of 2, since it is also "waves" in "fields"?

    The "answer" provided is usually that fields that have association with mass are not stretched because they are "bound". The "Higgs Field" that somehow creates the effect of mass is theorized to be "sticky" in ways that I have not seen explained coherently for laypeople to understand.

    But, getting back to my question, if space expansion can pull galaxies away from each other (unless they are pulled close to each other faster by gravity), then it seems that 'dark energy" is acting on mass to move it apart. Why doesn't that apply to electrons "orbiting" atomic nuclei?

    Just saying that it doesn't because some fields are sticky and others are not seems to just be circular logic to me. It seems like the rules are made to fit the observations, but then the differing rules for different "fields in space" are not required to be consistent with each other.

    This seems to me to be a fundamental gap between astrophysics models and quantum mechanics models. And, that really isn't surprising, given the problems acknowledged in combining the laws of gravity with the laws of the other forces.
    Reply
  • Pearlman YeC
    Pearlman SPIRAL cosmology was already on record predicting overall, starting at SPIRAL light year radius i, fewer, smaller, stellar objects, as we see from light that departed them when they were much closer to us. at radius i.
    In addition, if SPIRAL, the entire universe approximating the visible universe (the approximate sphere we the Earth-sun elliptic) are the approximate center of) the radius of which is 4B light years maximum, but more likely 1B light years rounded based on the current CMB temperature and distribution and it's attaining gravitational bound equilibrium relatively very early in history.
    radius i = distance to nearest light year departure point of any light arriving here and now at standard light speed that has ever been subjugated to any cosmic expansion.
    reference at ResearchGate MVP hypothesis and Pearlman vs Hubble.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    I saw an explanation of the Higgs Field that is somewhat better than I had seen before:
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the-higgs-field-actually-gives-mass-to-elementary-particles-20240903/ .

    But, it still seems to have some unexplained effects, such as it "suddenly turning on" as the universe was evolving. And, it "stiffening" other fields by unexplained interactions to cause mass. There are some other issues such as massless particles like photons being ripples in electric fields and electrons being ripples in (?) "electron fields". So, not the same "field"?! Does every elementary particle have its own field in which it is the resonant frequency? And, what happens when we find that what we thought was an elementary particle turns out to be made of even smaller particles? Did a "proton field" become an interaction of multiple "quark fields". Will those become even more complex interactions of even more "fields" if we discover quarks are made of "axions"?

    The whole thing seems to me reminiscent of the old mythologies where anthropomorphized forces named "Zeus" and "Apollo" etc. did the things that we observed but did not understand. Now it is non-anthropomorphized "fields" that "did" and "do" things without explanation of why or how during the evolution of the universe.
    Reply