Specifically this paper[0] is mentioned as predicting it
> Remarkably, the data roughly follow the green line, which is an L* galaxy magically put in place at the inconceivably high redshift of z=10. Galaxies seem to have gotten big impossibly early. This is why you see us astronomers flipping our lids at the JWST results. Can’t happen.
> Except that it can, and was predicted[0] to do so by Bob Sanders a quarter century ago: “Objects of galaxy mass are the first virialized objects to form (by z=10) and larger structure develops rapidly.”
A MoND-like theory that allows the strength of gravity / inertia to vary over time can explain that. Granted, that sounds farfetched, but then, so does DM. Of course, it's easy to spend money looking for DM, and hard to spend money looking for a better theory of gravity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29488993
> the observations seem to show more mature structures than predicted
Thank you for closing the loop for me! (would you happen to have a source?)
Probably. Certainly non-MoND people have:
> so give me some rope
Ok, here's some rope <https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2022/08/10/recalibration-of...>
Telescoper is an anagram of Peter Coles. It's his blog. He's a well known physical cosmologist <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Coles>.
Adams et al., authors of the preprint linked in that blog entry, are all well-known astronomers. Adams is a research associate and Observational Astronomer at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodrell_Bank_Observatory> specializing in high-redshift galaxies, and is in several large-telescope international collaborations (ESO, SKA, MIGHTEE, LADUMA).
The punchline: those seemingly super-far-away galaxies are getting much much closer as JWST's calibrations proceed according to plan.
ie the observations seem to show more mature structures than predicted, we're finding.
I've been wondering if some MoND / non-DM kind of theory may better explain these new JWST observations.
- I'm not anything close to an astrophysicist, so give me some rope :-)