Does this mean that big bang either didn't happen or happened in a different way that we think of it? Or happened far earlier than we think it did? Complete layman here.
I'm not an expert but from what I understand, scientists observed the very distant galaxies which shouldn't be visible according to most popular model of the universe evolution. And if these observations will be confirmed then we might get more accurate model which totally differs of the most popular one the scientists agrees upon.
Far distant young galaxies should be seen as "red", but these aren't and that's the issue here - JWST captured these very bright. It's possible that the universe evolves in a different way and Hubble's law doesn't applies
Incomplete/unconfirmed data is showing some discrepancies for what our tentative models of the early universe predict. The data could be wrong or misinterpreted, the models could be wrong, incomplete or misinterpreted, or the could be fundamental problems with the very foundations of cosmology. The models we have of early galaxy formation are very incomplete and based on very little data. It's exciting to get data that will discover new things about the early universe and help refine those models.
We have lots of theories, but we'll never be certain as we will never see back to the BB. Everything was hot plasma for 370k years after the BB. We can get maybe that close, but no further. We are still exploding anyways.
