<p>I'm wondering if this could explain the <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/james-webb-telescope-six-galaxies-old" rel="nofollow noreferrer">galaxies that appear to be older than is possible</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/CmxLv1rk.webp" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/CmxLv1rk.webp" alt="" /></a></p>
<p><em>Webb found these six bright, red, extremely distant galaxies that appear to be too massive to exist that early.</em></p>
<p>Labbé/Swinburne University of Technology, CSA, ESA, NASA.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-01T03:44:40.460Z
In very early universe galaxy doesn't exist, so I am not sure how this will explain why galaxies appear to be older than is possible.
Polaris5744
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-01T07:32:05.937Z
[Here ya go](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/james-webb-telescope-six-galaxies-old), @polaris
Miss Understands
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-01T12:34:53.307Z
Polaris is correct. By the time of recombination, the density of the universe had dropped to about 10$^{-14}$ g cm$^{-3}$.  Galaxies could not even begin to develop earlier than recombination and time dilation at those densities is insignificant.  But, if you did dilate time for galaxies, then wouldn’t they be younger and less developed ?  The answer is no because you would also dilate time for the expansion rate of the universe.  So, galaxy age and redshift would align with models.
eshaya
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-01T12:55:47.860Z
Woh, thank you! But: "time dilation at those densities is insignificant." Can you point me somewhere I could see that in numbers?
Miss Understands
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-02T10:42:03.147Z
You need $G\delta M/r \sim c^2$ to have significant time dilation, where $\delta M$ is the mass from over density.  At early times ovedensities are under order $10^{-5}$ for galaxy seeds and fall linearly with size beyond galaxy mass size.
eshaya
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-02T11:37:40.027Z
But the galaxies seem to be several times older than they are,  not a tiny bit older.  And, this time dilation thing goes in the wrong direction.  Time dilation is a slowing down of the clock as seen by another observer, not slowing light.
eshaya
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-10T17:27:50.990Z
@eshaya Could you give me a ref on the galaxy age anomaly being 2X? I thought it was like 5%. I haven't kept up with astrophysics since I got lazy.
Miss Understands
<gravity><big-bang-theory><time-dilation><age>
Could the huge mass density in the very early universe have caused gravitational time dilation that delayed light and makes the universe look younger?
Miss Understands
# Could the huge mass density in the very early universe have caused gravitational time dilation that delayed light and makes the universe look younger?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-10-31)

I'm wondering if this could explain the [galaxies that appear to be older than is possible](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/james-webb-telescope-six-galaxies-old).

[![](https://i.sstatic.net/CmxLv1rk.webp)](https://i.sstatic.net/CmxLv1rk.webp)

*Webb found these six bright, red, extremely distant galaxies that appear to be too massive to exist that early.*

Labbé/Swinburne University of Technology, CSA, ESA, NASA.

**Tags:** gravity, big-bang-theory, time-dilation, age

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: In very early universe galaxy doesn't exist, so I am not sure how this will explain why galaxies appear to be older than is possible.  
> **username_0**: [Here ya go](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/james-webb-telescope-six-galaxies-old), @polaris  
> **username_2**: Polaris is correct. By the time of recombination, the density of the universe had dropped to about 10$^{-14}$ g cm$^{-3}$.  Galaxies could not even begin to develop earlier than recombination and time dilation at those densities is insignificant.  But, if you did dilate time for galaxies, then wouldn’t they be younger and less developed ?  The answer is no because you would also dilate time for the expansion rate of the universe.  So, galaxy age and redshift would align with models.  
> **username_0**: Woh, thank you! But: "time dilation at those densities is insignificant." Can you point me somewhere I could see that in numbers?  
> **username_2**: You need $G\delta M/r \sim c^2$ to have significant time dilation, where $\delta M$ is the mass from over density.  At early times ovedensities are under order $10^{-5}$ for galaxy seeds and fall linearly with size beyond galaxy mass size.  
> **username_2**: But the galaxies seem to be several times older than they are,  not a tiny bit older.  And, this time dilation thing goes in the wrong direction.  Time dilation is a slowing down of the clock as seen by another observer, not slowing light.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Could you give me a ref on the galaxy age anomaly being 2X? I thought it was like 5%. I haven't kept up with astrophysics since I got lazy.  

---

## 0 answers

