So glad we still get those videos. A glimpse of calm in those trying times.

It should have been: "Panic! At the disks, oh" Then everyone would have gotten the joke. Be sure to catch that in the edit.

"Degraded a little bit but still better than it was expected to be" That's what I like to hear! (not the degradation part, but the robust engineering part)

All the qualities we expect from the Bradyverse. Level-headed news from the world of astrophysics, maths, chemistry, technology and science in general, delivered in an informative, understandable, short and entertaining video. Thank you, Brady - keeping asking those questions that we would like to ask.

I understand Brady's comment about pre-print servers. But I personally think they serve the fundamental purpose of science which is free and open knowledge sharing. Journals tend to put huge paywalls around papers, charge fees to the scientists for the 'privilege' of publication (those same scientists still have to pay huge subscription fees to read it and others - usually Universities stump the costs so Journals gouge them for all their worth). And after all that.... theres still no guarantees on the quality of the papers as how Journals implement peer review is subject to their own choices.... and there are numerous examples of seriously bad science being legitimised because it was 'published'. Pre-print runs the same quality risks as someone can upload rubbish, but equally, everyone, free of charge, globally, can read all uploaded papers and share knowledge rapidly... which is what science is about. Doing research, making observations about the universe and adding to the wealth of human knowledge purely for the sake of adding to human knowledge forever. Journals exist in the world and thats not going to change vut them acting as gatekeepers to the knowledge and putting substantial limits to their access (via paywalls) helps no one but the owners/shareholders of the journals. They have a prestige, and that for good or bad wont go away, but I do think they are the bane of the scientific world.

You could say that the JWST team had HIGH HOPES.

Oh man the explanation is really cool. So Hubble is seeing redshifted Ultraviolet and JWST is picking up optical light which is redshifted into injared so you see the same galaxies more clearly with better resolution, seeing elements of the galaxies that hubble just couldn't see.... So we were effectively just seeing the star formation in the distant galaxies... and not seeing all of the stars that are born... so it looked chaotic. wow that is really awesome. Please Post more Mike videos for JWST I could listen to him talk about it for hours

Well I was going to panic but when I read the helpful words "DON'T PANIC" I was properly assured.

I might change the title to Don't Panic! And Thanks for All the Disks! Thanks for the video on the paper ;)

Whew thank goodness the damage to JWST isn’t as serious as I thought may have occurred! Thank you for relieving my concerns there

Just here to say the title of that paper is hilariously flawless. No notes. Perfection. 😂 Publish as is.

I hate when the popular press states this of that new finding is a cause of panic or proves old knowledge is wrong. The entire reason to build JWST was to find out new stuff. That is exciting not a cause for panic. A better notion is that all theories are to some degree limited and new measurements expand the boundaries of our knowledge. Einstein did not prove Newton was wrong, he expanded our knowledge beyond what Newton did.

Haha! Yesss, Destin from Smartereveryday's dad worked on JWST for measurements , super interesting and love the ending there. Great work and thank you for the info! Love these channels since like 2011-2012 perodictablevideos was just the best for chemistry.

To all those that have, and are, working on the JWST. THANK YOU.

I follow this subject and him on Twitter and it's been a hell of a week!

If Merrifield isn’t panicking, neither am I. (But part of me was hoping he was)

"So, Professor, how panicked should we be?" "Somewhere between not at all and entirely." "I call entirely!!!!"

thanks for this. well done. post more.

happy to hear that "even after the meteoroid impacts the quality of the telescope is higher than specifications at launch"

I’ve been waiting for someone from here to talk about JWST.

The title is brilliant!

A 'like' is not sufficient for this video. I had to comment too. But I don't really have much to add. Brady and Mike yet again give us a calm, insightful and understandable summary of topical science. How does Brady with his journalist background do this??!? How does Mike with... oh. Go YT algorithm, go!

I'm with the Professor, I thought there would probably be some minor glitch in JWST that would render it unusable, but there is no better feeling than being wrong sometimes...😁🇦🇺👍

The Fidelity of those JWST photos just blows my mind.I sure hope to live long enough to see the stars with my own eyes.... if we don't do ourselves up first....

Brady, ur a legend. Thank you

Read a few articles about the subject and then I was waiting so hard for Mike to comment on it

Thanks for this.

So good to see Prof. Merrifield on Sixty Symbols again! It'd been so long since last we saw him that I have to confess that I was about to panic, but this video came to the rescue in nick of time -- now I'm calm again!

'A process of communication with the community.' - 2:06 One could also say 'peers'. 😃 Peer review isn't some small number of editors of some journal deciding with very limited time per paper submitted whether it should be seen.

So from 5 to 50% more disk type galaxies.... What are the optinal explanations for this new data then? Did collisions occur earlier than expected? Do they resolve more quickly into disks? Did fewer collisions occur? Do galaxies form into disk more often without collisions anyway? Where are we going with this?

Great video! Love JWST and letting a little air out of some overly sensational headlines.

Great summation. Thank you uploader!

master is back !

Keep calm and carry on

Damn it! Forgot my towel!

JWST Team - "Hey Look, Ma. I Made It."

Slightly off topic (actually quite a lot) do you still have a Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometer manufactured by VG Ionex and sold to Nottingham Uni and it is called a 'SIMS Lab 3A' it's probably about 30 years plus old and would have been used in Physics Lab for Material Science research and studies including Surface Science, Depth Profiling and Static/Dynamic SIMS. Quite easy to spot it has a stainless steel 'football' shaped metal chamber with ports dotted around it and works under Ultra High Vacuum and it's rather large please ?

My teachers were talking about how the big bang was "disproved" today lol. Should have watched this earlier.

What would the universe have looked like from one of those galaxies 12B years ago? Would the sky be noticeably different than today? Multiple visible spiral galaxies because theyre all closer together? Or just the same. What did the milky way look like back then?

The typesetting is so gorgeous! I love latex

It's interesting to think that we could be seeing the real colors of these far away and early galaxies instead of an interpretation of ultraviolet, assuming we were correctly shifting the light back.

What were the galaxies predicted to look like before Hubble and JWST?

6:35 Whats the scoop with that one of jupiter looking so weird?

I wish they would give us more pictures from the JWST. I have that dust cloud picture as my computer desktop picture. I look at it all the time. Amazing picture. I assume that it will be surpassed when more pictures are released.

I love the hitchhiker's reference in the thumbnail

I wonder what this observation about greater order in early galaxies suggests about Dark Matter?

The depiction of the redshift is wrong: in the video the transition goes from blue to pink to red. But pink does not appear in a spectrum (because its a mixture of red and blue). It should go from blue to green to yellow to red.

Isn't that redshift at 3:05 going the wrong way around the colour wheel? Shouldn't it go through the rainbow from blue to red?

I like this dude. Really easy to listen to. Nice and clear for idiots like me!

They *did* tell us to face these kinds of things with a sense of poise and rationality, tbf

I wonder if I have questions for nottingham university can I ask it here

Marvellous!

I imagine from our perspective, if we looked out and all them years ago it was an energized unorganized something that didn't form and it was light. The light from the beginning would look like a bubble that has a radius that equal a bunch of light years, not buzz. Looks like it was darkness still.

Woulda been cool if JWST had a laser defense system to protect itself?

This is such an amazing example of why the JWST needed to exist!!

With the jwst, shouldn't you change the phrase to "Cold off the Press" ?? 😃😃

Oh dear, that redshift animation, going from blue to red by going violet!

Oh Leonardo Ferreira, with these bad jokes you are really spoiling us.

Can someone explain what the professor means by "better-behaved, less dramatic optical light"? Is there something particular to the visible spectrum that's the reason for why we're most sensitive to it?

Maybe the playful title is intentional, meaning it suggests to readers that it's still only pre-print, and that if/when it's peer-reviewed it will get a title with more gravitas.

The Fab Four paper joke was changed so this one might be as well? :P

Let's see if I've misunderstood it, because I think it does challenged LCDM. I'll write down my interpretation before watching the video, and see if it's challenged at all by the video. Galaxy evolution is an important fitting parameter for LCDM, particularly in terms of fitting it to tolman tests. The Panic paper constrains the freedom of this fitting parameter in a way that potentially causes LCDM to be unable to fit to tolman tests in the way it has done so in the past. Tolman tests are a fundamental test of redshift being caused by expansion that are independent of fitting parameters such as dark energy and dark matter. Edit: nope, sadly the video did not engage with the interpretation that does challenge LCDM. To be more specific, the reason the paper constrains this fitting parameter in such a way is because it finds evidence that galaxy mergers are a lot less likely than previously thought; currently, there is not any other accepted mechanism to evolve galaxies in the ways needed to fit LCDM to tolman tests. Here are the relevant excerpts from the paper: > It is now well established that galaxies as observed with HST become smaller and more irregular/peculiar at higher redshifts, and this has been accounted for by the merger process for a significant fraction (40%-50%) of systems (Conselice 2014). ... > However, it does appear from an initial analysis that there are far more disk galaxies at high redshift than originally thought with HST. We in fact find that at the highest redshifts probed by HST there are in fact up to 10 times more disk galaxies than we had thought, based on the JWST visual morphologies. This implies that disk galaxies have existed in large numbers for quite a significant amount of time. This may mean that the morphologies of some disk galaxies, such as the Milky Way, have remained in their current form for over 10 billion years. This would challenge our ideas about mergers being a very common process... So yes, the Paper does indeed challenge the interpretation of redshift as expansion when its conclusions are interpreted in terms of the tolman tests. I find it very alarming that people appear to be wilfully ignoring this very valid interpretation.

If we use filters on our telescope that measure certain specific frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum, how do we capture images of deeply redshifted objects whose same components are no longer presenting to the telescope at the frequencies they would if they weren’t redshifted at all?

Could we get some JWST deep field images like the Hubble deep field images?

Don't panic is the best start to about anything

Hmmm, what if .... these findings are be due to facts relating to how we calculate the the ages of these galaxies, instead of a lack in understanding of galaxy formation in the early universe... Another Great upload :o)

Phew, I thought this would be about more of the unexpectedly large meteorites hitting JWST

That’s like the famous NMR paper written by Bax, Max, and Zacs, that appeared in JACS.

Could it be that the amount of meteorites at that point in space/orbit was underestimated? Or how was/is the likeliness of the JWST getting hit by tiny meteorites determined anyway?

when I saw 'panic paper' I was worried something happened to the jwst, that's a relief

Alternative title: I plot spins not trajectories

7:60 ...do you think they bought it ?

When I've seen "Panic!" I was crying... crying at the discoteque...

I did not get the reference in the title - or find it funny. But it has served one purpose: It showed, who only read titles before forming an opinion and who actually reads and understands the two gazillion pages that follow. So the title was perfect.

Greetings from Finland!

To be nitpicky: 2:54 when waves are getting longer, they should not go through magenta as there is no light of this color. I guess it should go through white instead.

I write dust lanes not molecular cloud collapses. I loved the papers title and agreed with him that the world needs more panic! at the disco references.

Can't see Atlas of Creation on Professor Merrifield's shelf any more

Does seem there should be a bunch of light in the photos. Almost seems, from the diagram, that appears to show a "light" beginning, the area behind all the galaxies would be a curtain of light. This curtain of light must have covered all space, so no matter which way you look, you would have a lot background. Assuming I understand the diagram. Lol. I'm not panicking.

Never did I think in a billion billion quantum worlds that I'd hear this man say "Panic! At the Disco"

I see future papers will have more citations and names than research and results.

If you are talking about something that has not been published, how does that cause "misunderstanding"?

I might one day understand the paper, more than can be said about the joke.

7:29 It took damage so quickly; Why aren't we more worried about this? Also does anyone know if astronauts could replace a damage mirror?

I think for early releases of papers, they need to post at the very top of the paper something like "EARLY RELEASE! NOT FOR PUBLICATION! NOT PEER REVIEWED!"

What's wrong with being a little bombastic? I am enjoying the silliness it has generated.

Isn't it just the scientific method we found new data and adjusted are theory appropriate?

Nice

Its settled... Goddidit!

Whichever author decided to use that title is *my hero* and I love them. Also, wow, that is an old picture of the band -- look at little baby Brendon! 🤗

I was told in scientific papers to never use exclams which I agree with on an ethical level. Why should science have to compete with the world of clickbaiting

10/10 for the title

As a person whose first exposure to this paper was a person asking whether or not naming a pre-released paper a joking title might be misleading to the public, I'm going to say no. Also, you folks may want to go outside if you think this is an issue worth addressing. This isn't a "media outreach or public relations regarding science" issue, this is just a minor squabble a couple of nerds are having about how staunch to be in their diaries.

Dont panic is a nice coldplay song

it just clicked to me that JWST is a visible light telescope, but specifically at long ranges

As the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy says, "Don't panic."

why are you so angry about the paper title? It's literally so fine and I like seeing titles nodding to culture they were cultivated in. I don't think science should be so prissy and think a people can't handle a pun/joke that a scientist makes.

Panic will come before change in our understanding!

I love the title. Life is a game, don’t take it serious

Always bring your towel.