Quasar found 770 My after supposed big bang

The ESO people have confirmed the discovery by Bram Venemans of a quasar
at z = 7.1. This thing has a mass of 2 000 Million suns, nothing less!

In the same press release (http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1122/) they
say that the first stars started forming 100-150 million years
after the bang...

That would mean then, that this black hole was swallowing

2 000 000 000 / 670 000 000 = 2.98

i.e. 3 suns per year for 600 million years.

The efficiency of the process is low,
and black holes can't swallow very efficiently stars, so
the rate of in-falling stars must be at least twice as much
if we would have an incredible high accretion efficiency of 50%.

[Mod. note: it's perfectly possible for all the material falling in to
increase the mass of the black hole. As I think I remember pointing
out before, 'accretion efficiency' usually means the efficiency of
turning accreted matter into radiation, which is not relevant here. --mjh]

I think this will prove impossible.

My predictions a

This quasar will look exactly the same as all the other
quasars we know

It will have a high rotation rate what makes accretion even
more difficult. I think that black holes are spun up with
in falling matter, and this hole was very active since we can
detect it at such a huge distance.

jacob

---
To the moderator:

If anything is wrong with this note please send your complaints to:

jacob at jacob dot remcomp dot fr

In article , jacob navia
writes:

i.e. 3 suns per year for 600 million years.

Even if it swallows 3 solar masses of material per year, that doesn't
mean it is swallowing stars.

jacob navia wrote in
:

The ESO people have confirmed the discovery by Bram Venemans of a
quasar at z = 7.1. This thing has a mass of 2 000 Million suns,
nothing less!

In the same press release (http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1122/)
they say that the first stars started forming 100-150 million years
after the bang...

That would mean then, that this black hole was swallowing

2 000 000 000 / 670 000 000 = 2.98

i.e. 3 suns per year for 600 million years.

Which, of course, presumes that the process starts out with a small
black hole that eats stars one at a time rather than a large pile of
matter directly collapsing into a black hole. Remember PopIII stars were
likely large enough to skip the core collapse stage and collapse
directly to a black hole fairly quickly. That'll get you an easy 200
solar mases. Or more.

The universe was a whole lot smaller back then, with things packed a
whole lot closer. It doesn't surprise me that collections of matter came
together fast.

The only thing that surprises me is the sheer spectrum of core black
hole masses - ours is ~ 4x10^6 M_sun while this one is 2x10^9 M_sun.



The efficiency of the process is low,
and black holes can't swallow very efficiently stars, so
the rate of in-falling stars must be at least twice as much
if we would have an incredible high accretion efficiency of 50%.

Define 'accretion efficiency'.

For stuff going past the event horizon, it is in the neighborhood of 90%
efficient because the accertion process has about a 10% radiative
efficiency.



[Mod. note: it's perfectly possible for all the material falling in to
increase the mass of the black hole. As I think I remember pointing
out before, 'accretion efficiency' usually means the efficiency of
turning accreted matter into radiation, which is not relevant here.
--mjh]

I think this will prove impossible.

My predictions a

This quasar will look exactly the same as all the other
quasars we know

In that there's a wide range of differences WRT luminosity, distance,
size, variability, SMBH mass...?


It will have a high rotation rate what makes accretion even
more difficult. I think that black holes are spun up with
in falling matter, and this hole was very active since we can
detect it at such a huge distance.

In what way does high spin make accretion difficult? Angular momentum is
just as conserved and has to be dissipated either way whether the object
is spinning or not.


jacob

---
To the moderator:

If anything is wrong with this note please send your complaints to:

jacob at jacob dot remcomp dot fr