<p>From a big bang theorist point of view it is assumed that the galaxies at higher redshift are indeed smaller then present day, close by, galaxies.</p>
<p>This is believed to be explained by a merging process where many small galaxies soon after the big bang event over time becomes fewer and fewer but larger galaxies. James Webb is likely to over time get some statistics over how common galaxy mergers are and to what extent this merging theory is correct.</p>
<p>Also it is from a big bang standpoint believed that galaxies at higher redshift have a higher star formation rate and therefore a higher surface brightness. Over time the spectroscopy capacities of James Webb are likely to build up some decent statistics as to whether differences in physical properties between local and high z galaxies can explain perceived differences in surface brightness.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-30T21:07:00.950Z
2022-09-30T21:07:00.950Z
Agerhell
<p>Allegedly supported by some evidence from the new James Webb space telescope physicist Eric Lerner has written an <a href="https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215" rel="nofollow noreferrer">article</a> that have garnered some attention. He writes that:</p>
<p>&quot;Put another way, the galaxies that the JWST shows are just the same size as the galaxies near to us, if it is assumed that the universe is not expanding and redshift is proportional to distance.&quot;</p>
<p>He claims that according to an <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0275" rel="nofollow noreferrer">old article</a> that he has gotten published in a serious journal, if you assume distance increases proportionally to distance, surface brightness stays essentially constant up to a redshift of z=5 and that James Webb shows that this holds up to z=12.</p>
<p>He also claims that according to a <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09436" rel="nofollow noreferrer">recent paper</a> the galaxy &quot;GHz2&quot;<sup>1-3</sup> must have a surface brightness 600 times higher than any known &quot;close&quot; galaxy if the model theoretical cosmologists use to predict distance from redshift is used. He concludes by stating:</p>
<p>&quot;Big Bang theorists have known for years from the HST images that their assumptions necessitate the existence of these tiny, ultra-dense “Mighty Mouse” galaxies.&quot;</p>
<p>Now is Eric Lerner correct? Can he be refuted? Do you get a lot of strange small but luminous &quot;might mouse galaxies&quot; if you use the standard &quot;<a href="https://www.astro.ucla.edu/%7Ewright/CosmoCalc.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">distance as a function of redshift expression</a>&quot; that cosmologists use and do you get rid of the need for these galaxies if you assume that distance increases proportional to redshift? Is he factually correct that surface brightness stays constant up to a redshift of z=12 if you assume redshift increases in proportion to distance? Is Lerner &quot;cherrypicking&quot; from observations to get the result he wants?</p>
<p><strong>Question:</strong> Do the results from the James Webb telescope point in the direction that redshift might increase linearly with redshifts because then you get about the same galaxy sizes and surface brightnesses as in the local universe also for highly redshifted &quot;high Z&quot; galaxies?</p>
<hr />
<ul>
<li><sup>1</sup><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09436" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Early results from GLASS-JWST. III: Galaxy candidates at z ∼9-15</a></li>
<li><sup>2</sup><em>The Atlantic</em> JULY 22, 2022 <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/07/james-webb-telescope-image-most-distant-galaxy/670616/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Webb Space Telescope Is a Time Machine</a></li>
<li><sup>3</sup>Wikipedia: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLASS-z13" rel="nofollow noreferrer">GLASS-z13</a></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-24T05:40:29.203Z
`+1` not likely related: [Mighty Mouse in the Great Space Chase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_Mouse_in_the_Great_Space_Chase)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-24T13:01:38.013Z
Calling Lerner a "physicist" is really stretching things...
Peter Erwin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-25T07:16:06.377Z
@PeterErwin If you think you can easily shoot down some of Learners claims, please provide that in the form of an answer.
Agerhell
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-25T20:24:42.620Z
https://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html , https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/has-jwst-disproven-big-bang/ , and https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-james-webb-space-telescope-images-do-not-debunk-the-big-bang/
Peter Erwin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-26T08:41:21.780Z
@PeterErwin  I checked your CNET reference and it did not seem to adress the issue adressed in the question, apart from a women saying galaxies at high redshift are much smaller than modern galaxies. Now what about the surface brightness? Does the interpretation of distance/redshift relation the woman does turn these galaxies into "mighty mouses"?
Agerhell
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-26T08:51:25.050Z
@PeterErwin I checked your reference to Edward Wright and he does not seem to adress the issue in the question. Is there a scientific reason why galaxies in the distant passed should have a higher surface brightness than modern galaxies?
Agerhell
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-26T09:44:41.170Z
@Agerhell -- the Edward Wright reference (which is from the early 2000s) is addressing the general question of "is Lerner a serious physicist?"
Peter Erwin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-26T09:50:38.667Z
@Agerhell -- galaxies in the early universe had, on average, higher star formation rates than local ("modern") galaxies, which means that had much higher densities of young, massive stars, which are much brighter than the predominantly middle-aged or old stellar populations of local galaxies. Thus, they will naturally have higher surface brightnesses.
Peter Erwin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-26T10:09:42.343Z
@PeterErwin You can measure the star formation rates of galaxies "close by" and see that the galaxies with a lot of star formation has higher surface brightness? Can you also somehow measure the star formation rates of high-z galaxies and find that their surface brightness is a simple function of their star formation rate?
Agerhell
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-27T05:52:55.797Z
@PeterErwin You measure the metallicity of high z galaxies and notice that they have low metallicity and therefore should be younger and have a high star formation rate and a high surface brightness?
Agerhell
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-27T12:57:55.057Z
@Agerhell No, the SFR for high redshift galaxies is measured directly, using the same techniques used for local galaxies (e.g, UV flux, UV and optical emission lines, mid-IR emission from hot dust), with appropriate corrections things like differences in metallicity. (Measuring SFR is somewhat easier than measuring metallicity, in fact.)
Peter Erwin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-27T13:02:25.647Z
And high SFR automatically means higher surface brightness, since (as I pointed out above) a younger stellar population includes massive stars (which are short-lived), which are much brighter than an older population without massive stars.
Peter Erwin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-28T11:27:08.470Z
@PeterErwin So in principle it is a straightforward task to measure the star formation rate of high z galaxies and determine whether a suggested higher than average surface brightness among high z galaxies is due to higher star formation rate?
Agerhell
<cosmology><distances><redshift><big-bang-theory><james-webb-space-telescope>
Redshift distance proportionality at high Z and need for "mighty mouse" galaxies?
Agerhell
# Redshift distance proportionality at high Z and need for "mighty mouse" galaxies?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-09-23)

Allegedly supported by some evidence from the new James Webb space telescope physicist Eric Lerner has written an [article](https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215) that have garnered some attention. He writes that:

"Put another way, the galaxies that the JWST shows are just the same size as the galaxies near to us, if it is assumed that the universe is not expanding and redshift is proportional to distance."

He claims that according to an [old article](https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0275) that he has gotten published in a serious journal, if you assume distance increases proportionally to distance, surface brightness stays essentially constant up to a redshift of z=5 and that James Webb shows that this holds up to z=12.

He also claims that according to a [recent paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09436) the galaxy "GHz2"1-3 must have a surface brightness 600 times higher than any known "close" galaxy if the model theoretical cosmologists use to predict distance from redshift is used. He concludes by stating:

"Big Bang theorists have known for years from the HST images that their assumptions necessitate the existence of these tiny, ultra-dense “Mighty Mouse” galaxies."

Now is Eric Lerner correct? Can he be refuted? Do you get a lot of strange small but luminous "might mouse galaxies" if you use the standard "[distance as a function of redshift expression](https://www.astro.ucla.edu/%7Ewright/CosmoCalc.html)" that cosmologists use and do you get rid of the need for these galaxies if you assume that distance increases proportional to redshift? Is he factually correct that surface brightness stays constant up to a redshift of z=12 if you assume redshift increases in proportion to distance? Is Lerner "cherrypicking" from observations to get the result he wants?

**Question:** Do the results from the James Webb telescope point in the direction that redshift might increase linearly with redshifts because then you get about the same galaxy sizes and surface brightnesses as in the local universe also for highly redshifted "high Z" galaxies?

---

* 1[Early results from GLASS-JWST. III: Galaxy candidates at z ∼9-15](https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09436)
* 2*The Atlantic* JULY 22, 2022 [The Webb Space Telescope Is a Time Machine](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/07/james-webb-telescope-image-most-distant-galaxy/670616/)
* 3Wikipedia: [GLASS-z13](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLASS-z13)

**Tags:** cosmology, distances, redshift, big-bang-theory, james-webb-space-telescope
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: `+1` not likely related: [Mighty Mouse in the Great Space Chase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_Mouse_in_the_Great_Space_Chase)  
> **username_2**: Calling Lerner a "physicist" is really stretching things...  
> **username_0**: @PeterErwin If you think you can easily shoot down some of Learners claims, please provide that in the form of an answer.  
> **username_2**: https://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html , https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/has-jwst-disproven-big-bang/ , and https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-james-webb-space-telescope-images-do-not-debunk-the-big-bang/  
> **username_0**: @PeterErwin  I checked your CNET reference and it did not seem to adress the issue adressed in the question, apart from a women saying galaxies at high redshift are much smaller than modern galaxies. Now what about the surface brightness? Does the interpretation of distance/redshift relation the woman does turn these galaxies into "mighty mouses"?  
> **username_0**: @PeterErwin I checked your reference to Edward Wright and he does not seem to adress the issue in the question. Is there a scientific reason why galaxies in the distant passed should have a higher surface brightness than modern galaxies?  
> **username_2**: @Agerhell -- the Edward Wright reference (which is from the early 2000s) is addressing the general question of "is Lerner a serious physicist?"  
> **username_2**: @Agerhell -- galaxies in the early universe had, on average, higher star formation rates than local ("modern") galaxies, which means that had much higher densities of young, massive stars, which are much brighter than the predominantly middle-aged or old stellar populations of local galaxies. Thus, they will naturally have higher surface brightnesses.  
> **username_0**: @PeterErwin You can measure the star formation rates of galaxies "close by" and see that the galaxies with a lot of star formation has higher surface brightness? Can you also somehow measure the star formation rates of high-z galaxies and find that their surface brightness is a simple function of their star formation rate?  
> **username_0**: @PeterErwin You measure the metallicity of high z galaxies and notice that they have low metallicity and therefore should be younger and have a high star formation rate and a high surface brightness?  
> **username_2**: @Agerhell No, the SFR for high redshift galaxies is measured directly, using the same techniques used for local galaxies (e.g, UV flux, UV and optical emission lines, mid-IR emission from hot dust), with appropriate corrections things like differences in metallicity. (Measuring SFR is somewhat easier than measuring metallicity, in fact.)  
> **username_2**: And high SFR automatically means higher surface brightness, since (as I pointed out above) a younger stellar population includes massive stars (which are short-lived), which are much brighter than an older population without massive stars.  
> **username_0**: @PeterErwin So in principle it is a straightforward task to measure the star formation rate of high z galaxies and determine whether a suggested higher than average surface brightness among high z galaxies is due to higher star formation rate?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2022-09-30. Score: 0

From a big bang theorist point of view it is assumed that the galaxies at higher redshift are indeed smaller then present day, close by, galaxies.

This is believed to be explained by a merging process where many small galaxies soon after the big bang event over time becomes fewer and fewer but larger galaxies. James Webb is likely to over time get some statistics over how common galaxy mergers are and to what extent this merging theory is correct.

Also it is from a big bang standpoint believed that galaxies at higher redshift have a higher star formation rate and therefore a higher surface brightness. Over time the spectroscopy capacities of James Webb are likely to build up some decent statistics as to whether differences in physical properties between local and high z galaxies can explain perceived differences in surface brightness.


---

