Oxygen atoms discovered in most distant known galaxy

It fits the theme that, according to Webb, the universe developed a lot more quickly in what we think were the first billion years... Most likely the "first billion years" were more like five billion years.

So either our understanding of nucleosynthesis is incomplete or the universe is older than we think.<p>Which one is more likely? Are there assumptions or parameters in our model for the age of the universe that could be inaccurate?

Note the theory in this release is the oxygen is from a mature star releasing heavier elements, not plant life.<p>I thought oxygen detection was extremely difficult, they must have better methods now.<p>adding:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.arizona.edu&#x2F;news&#x2F;how-next-gen-telescopes-could-discover-extraterrestrial-oxygen" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.arizona.edu&#x2F;news&#x2F;how-next-gen-telescopes-could-...</a>

I&#x27;m always fascinated by the posters here who insist on second-guessing the writers and the scientists who spend their whole lives studying a topic like this.<p>No one needs to read your post fessing up to your profound ignorance and the fact that you didn&#x27;t really read the link.

Oxygen is everywhere.<p>Hydrogen is everywhere.<p>The possibilities are interesting.

I would be shocked if it were not found everywhere.

Finding oxygen in a galaxy this young is pretty wild

Off topic:<p>- Is the big bang theory <i>the</i> scientific consensus on the origin and evolution of the universe ?<p>- What are the alternatives ?

@dang the article does not seem to imply that molecular oxygen was found. maybe retitle to &quot;Oxygen element&quot; or &quot;Atomic oxygen&quot;?

How can they possibly be sure that it is oxygen doing that?

Gotta add the time factor. “Billions of years ago”

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away…<p>This is interesting but at same time oxygen is the third most abundant element so it’s not surprising to find it, I suppose. Neat anyway.

I’m always a bit skeptical about these sorts of things. Perhaps I’m just ignorant about the methods used.. but the amount of data we can get from the most distant known galaxy can’t be very much. How confident can we be that the shift in observed light or whatever is actually from the presence of Oxygen and not one of probably countless other causes, both known and unknown.

From [1] and [2] we read that the CMB was created around 380 million years after the Big Bang, and that hydrogen atoms were created at the same time. The original article above [3] says that this galaxy was created when the universe was about 300 million years old. These seem to be in conflict; am I misunderstanding something, or is there really a conflict there?<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Cosmic_microwave_background#Predictions_based_on_the_Big_Bang_model" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Cosmic_microwave_background#Pr...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Big_Bang#Timeline" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Big_Bang#Timeline</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eso.org&#x2F;public&#x2F;news&#x2F;eso2507&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eso.org&#x2F;public&#x2F;news&#x2F;eso2507&#x2F;</a>

Anyone else think this is a huge non-story? Like, of course there&#x27;s going to be oxygen in distant galaxies. Why wouldn&#x27;t there be? It would be far more interesting if there <i>wasn&#x27;t</i> oxygen in distant galaxies.