Are some here misinterpreting this finding?
Explanation from link: "...found that 10 times as many galaxies were packed into a given volume of space in the early universe than found today. Most of these galaxies were relatively small and faint, with masses similar to those of the satellite galaxies surrounding the Milky Way. As they merged to form larger galaxies the population density* of galaxies in space dwindled."
* Note: POPULATION density. Count per unit volume. But 'relatively small'.
I read that as stating that the distant (=early) Universe is (=was) populated by lots of cute little baby galaxies that slowly merged to become fewer larger galaxies over time. The number of galaxies in earlier times (=far away) is larger, but they're smaller. The little ones merged to make fewer but larger ones as time went on.
So, no. The Universe isn't any bigger. They've not discovered any new mass. The early Universe is more interesting than expected. The evolution of galaxies is different than had been assumed. The galaxy count is higher, but compensated by smaller average size.
Am I reading it right?
The real impact is that astronomers will obviously need some even bigger instruments, please and thank you. Which is okay by me. And the JWT IR Space Telescope is just about perfectly timed.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
