#142 More problems than answers...
From “The First Year of JWST Day 1 - Session 1 (Sep 11, 2023)” Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) Research Staff Channel
https://youtu.be/pAPeLRl5rT0?t=2242 - Haojing Yan “Last year when we first published our work on very high redshift z>11 in SMACS 0723 we were very badly smashed.”
Yan et al. used a stricter selection filter, but z_photometric > 13 galaxies still don’t show the expected rapid evolution.
1
Have there been any detailed analysis of these distant galazies
The talks presented here https://www.youtube.com/@stsciresearch6722/streams seem to be reporting the most recent analyses.
The speaker shown there said in his talk that their data is consistent with the epoch of reionization being at z = 17.3. Can we take from that that we can expect to see no galaxies with redshifts higher than this?
I think there might be galaxies beyond z=17.3, if the telescope is programmed to look
Non-ionized hydrogen gas only blocks UV wavelengths. Galaxies can be observed beyond $z > 20$ with JWST and radio telescopes, independently of the beginning of the “period of reionization”. Look at the three examples of F277 dropouts shown here, those are likely galaxies at $z \simeq 24$ (the animation goes to $z = 29.9$).
In any case, the “period of reionization” is a theoretical event that happens after the Big Bang, therefore there is no such “period of reionization”.
I was referring to,whether the JWST cornsortium will allow researchers to look beyond z=17.3. I think if such research is allowed we might find interesting galaxies at z=29.9
@bgreenman >I think if such research is allowed we might find interesting galaxies at z=29.9
In a previous post an explanation of the numbers $w$ and $W$ is given. If Halton Arp’s Ideas are worked out in a proper manner, then there results a maximum for the cosmological redshifts that can ever be observed. That maximum turns out to be given by
$$ 1+z_{max} = e^{H/c.W.c/H} = e^W = \exp(3.383634283) \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \Large \boxed{ z_{max} \approx 28.5 } $$
Thats a great correction, the explanation shown in the YouTube presentation is slightly off
@bgreenman the value $z = 29.9$ presented in the YouTube video is only the limit on this specific animation. By no means should this be mis-interpreted as a limit on redshift!
correct